HomeoAxis vs Homoeoclinics
Our closest competitor: an Indian practice-management platform built for homoeopaths, with published pricing. The comparable tier costs twice ours, and the deeper difference is philosophical — they sell AI remedy recommendations with confidence scores; we deliberately keep the machine out of the verdict.
We make Homoeoclinics. HomeoAxis publishes its pricing — which not every competitor does, and which we respect — so this page can be unusually concrete. Every claim about them below is read from their own public pages on the date shown.
The facts, side by side
| HomeoAxis | Homoeoclinics | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | SSR ₹416.58/month · Solo ₹1,999/month · Growth ₹3,499/month · Chain ₹5,999/month; 7-day trial; annual billing −10% homeoaxis.com/pricing, 31 Aug 2026 | Solo ₹999/month, ₹650/month per additional doctor · Clinic ₹2,499/month (up to 4 doctors, ₹500/month per doctor beyond) · Scholar ₹149/month; quarterly −12%, yearly −25%; 50% off the first three months; excl. taxes homoeoclinics.com, 25 Sep 2026 |
| Metering | AI tokens are metered per tier homeoaxis.com/pricing, 31 Aug 2026 | Nothing is metered — no tokens, no credits, no per-use charges of any kind |
| Remedy assistance | AI remedy recommendation with confidence scores, among 30+ modules homeoaxis.com, 31 Aug 2026 | No AI recommendations and no confidence scores, as a deliberate product decision. Repertorisation across a rich set of classical repertories returns rubrics and remedies as clinical reference for the doctor to verify before prescribing — a list to check, never a verdict |
| Reference corpus | No classical repertory corpus listed among the published modules homeoaxis.com, checked 31 Aug 2026 | A rich set of classical repertories (Kent, Knerr, Gentry, Boger–Boenninghausen, Therapeutic Pocket Book, Boericke, Boger's General Analysis, Clarke's Clinical) plus materia medica, remedy relationships from five classical sources, and the philosophy texts — searchable in English and Devanagari, downloadable for offline reading |
| Platform | Web SaaS with PWA homeoaxis.com, 31 Aug 2026 | Web, Android and iOS apps; the reference corpus works offline, and case notes written offline sync when the network returns |
| Where case text goes | Not published in a form we could verify 31 Aug 2026 | Case notes are read by our own software on our own servers — never sent to a third-party AI service or anywhere outside the application's infrastructure |
The real difference: who renders the verdict
Price aside, the products disagree about one thing at the level of philosophy. HomeoAxis publishes a confidence score beside its AI's remedy recommendations — the machine tells you how sure it is. We build the opposite posture into ours: what our repertorisation returns is a list of rubrics and remedies with their classical grades and sources, and no number claiming to know how right it is. The doctor's verdict is the only verdict.
That is not a claim that our engine is more accurate — we publish no accuracy figure, on principle. It reflects what the peer-reviewed literature says about the category: a published comparison of an automated remedy finder against practitioners' actual prescriptions found the practitioner's remedy anywhere in the software's list only 59% of the time, and no remedy overlap at all in 41% of the cases analysed. That study is about a different tool and says nothing about HomeoAxis specifically — we cite it only for why we refuse to put a confidence number between a doctor and a case. If a scored recommendation is what you want from software, HomeoAxis sells it and we do not; choose accordingly.
One more difference of posture, stated without comparison: you will find no testimonials on our site. We publish none until we have consented, named, real ones.
Since this page was written, the evidence on that category question has moved — and it is worth reading before choosing either product. In July 2026 Healthcare published a study of four AI chatbots against 100 acute cases from a teaching clinic. Averaged across the four, the practitioner’s remedy was the AI’s top suggestion 20.8% of the time and appeared anywhere in its list 36.5% of the time, with no overlap at all in 41% of cases. In twelve repeat queries — same platform, same case, minutes apart — half returned a different top remedy, and when the researchers pushed back on a suggestion, one platform flipped to the practitioner’s own remedy 44 times out of 75.Healthcare 2026;14(7):909, read 13 Sep 2026
That study tested general-purpose chatbots, not HomeoAxis, and we are not extending its findings to their product — we have not tested it and we will not characterise it. We cite it because it is the best public evidence on the property we designed around: reproducibility. Our suggestion path calls no model and no third-party service at all, so the same note returns the same list, and every row can name its book, author, printed grade and page. Our full argument, including where we think AI genuinely helps and the in-process embedding model we use ourselves, is in why we don’t put an AI in the prescribing seat.
The other thing a metered model changes
AI tokens are limited per plan in this market. That is a fair way to charge for a real cost, but it means the monthly price depends on how much you use it. Nothing on our suggestion path is metered, because nothing on it calls an outside AI service. Your own uploaded combination list is in the plan too, not sold on top (how that works).
When HomeoAxis is the better choice
- You run a multi-clinic chain. Their Growth and Chain tiers are built for that shape; our Clinic plan covers up to one clinic's doctors, not a chain of clinics.
- You want the broadest module list. Their published set includes medicine-delivery integrations, among 30+ modules — a feature we do not offer. (We do have our own online consultations: book an appointment as online and a Google Meet link is generated and shared automatically.)
- You want the lowest possible entry price. Their SSR tier at ₹416.58/month is below our Solo. Check what that tier includes against what you need — but it exists, and a comparison page that hid it would not deserve your trust.
When Homoeoclinics is
If you want one clinic run end to end — records, case notes in your own shorthand, repertorisation against the actual classical corpus, prescriptions on your letterhead, follow-ups chased, patients booking and reminded on their own app, online consultations over Google Meet when a visit doesn't need to happen in person, your clinic's website hosted — at ₹999/month with everything included and nothing metered, that is precisely what we sell. And if you specifically want software that treats the classical books as the reference and the doctor as the decider, that is not one of our features; it is the design.
Five checks that settle it faster than any table
Take your hardest recent case — one you have already prescribed for and followed up, so you know the answer — and run it through both products:
- Enter it twice, ten minutes apart. Did the top of the list move?
- Pick the strangest suggestion and ask which book and page it came from. Then open the book.
- Remove a rubric you disagree with and see whether the software lets you, and whether the ranking honestly changes.
- Ask in writing where the case text goes and how long it is kept.
- Ask what happens the day a usage allowance runs out in the middle of OPD.
We would rather lose to a product that passes all five than win against one that does not. The reasoning behind each check, with its sources, is in why we don’t put an AI in the prescribing seat.