EarthlyAI engagements begin with a defined operational outcome, usually a patient summary workflow or a claims review lane, and then expand once reviewers trust the output and the deployment model.
These are intentionally framed as deployment tiers, not consumer SaaS plans. Exact pricing depends on document volume, infrastructure expectations, and whether the first workflow is chronology or claims focused.
For teams validating one product surface such as a medical chronology packet or initial claim review flow.
Best for first pilots and design partners.
For teams moving from pilot into actual reviewer usage, with more records, more operators, and stronger process expectations.
Best balance between speed and product depth.
For organizations scaling multiple document workflows, integrating deeper infrastructure, or enforcing stricter governance requirements.
Best for scaled deployments and dedicated environments.
Clinical charts, claims packets, legal exhibits, or a mix of all three changes the extraction and review plan.
A chronology, a legal packet, a graph explorer, and a review dashboard are different output commitments.
Local-only, private cloud, or hybrid deployment decisions shape implementation more than superficial feature lists do.
EarthlyAI is being positioned as an operational document system. The price conversation is therefore about workflow scope, deployment constraints, and reviewer value rather than just user counts.
The updated site now makes that progression clear: choose the workflow, inspect the platform, and then scope a pilot around a real operational artifact.