MEDICAL AUDITING SOFTWARE COMPARISON

Audit Manager+ vs. MDaudit

Which Healthcare Auditing Software Is Right for Your Organization?

Healthcare organizations are under increasing pressure to protect revenue, ensure billing accuracy, and demonstrate defensible compliance practices, often with limited staff and growing audit volumes. As a result, audit technology has become a strategic investment rather than a back-office tool. 

Two platforms frequently evaluated by compliance, revenue integrity, and audit teams are Audit Manager+ by Healthicity and MDaudit. While both support healthcare auditing, their philosophies, strengths, and ideal use cases differ significantly. 

This guide provides a clear, practical comparison of Audit Manager+ vs. MDaudit, with a focus on audit execution, flexibility, and revenue protection, helping you determine which solution best aligns with your audit strategy.  

Audit Manager+ is an audit-first healthcare auditing platform built for teams that need hands-on audit execution, customization, and prospective revenue protection. MDaudit is designed for enterprise-wide revenue integrity analytics. Organizations focused on performing high-quality audits efficiently often choose Audit Manager+ as a simpler, more flexible alternative to MDaudit. 

 

OVERVIEW:
What is the Difference Between Audit Manager+ and MDaudit? 

At a high level, the distinction between Audit Manager+ and MDaudit comes down to focus. 

Audit Manager+ is purpose-built as an audit-first platform, designed by auditors for auditors. It prioritizes accuracy, consistency, customization, and usability at the point of audit without forcing teams into rigid workflows or unnecessary modules. 

MDaudit, by contrast, positions itself as a broad revenue integrity ecosystem, combining auditing with billing analytics, benchmarking, and enterprise-level monitoring. While powerful, that breadth can introduce complexity for teams whose primary need is executing high-quality audits efficiently and defensibly. 

For organizations that want direct control over audit methodology, scoring, and reporting, Audit Manager+ often delivers faster value with less overhead. 

FEATURE COMPARISON:
Audit Manager+ vs. MDaudit

Feature Audit Manager+ MDaudit
Core Focus   Audit-first, auditor-driven workflows  Enterprise revenue integrity platform 
Prospective Auditing  Yes Limited / analytics-driven 
Custom Checklists  Fully customizable, auto-assigned  Structured templates 
Audit Multiple Auditees Simultaneously Yes – every data element 
Yes 
Line-Level Claim Audits 
Intuitive, dashboard-driven, minimal learning curve  Complex enterprise
Scoring Rules 
Highly configurable and weighted  Standardized 
QA Oversight  Built-in, skill-based QA  Available 
Multi-Level Reporting  Line → chart → department → organization  Enterprise dashboards 
Code Set Coverage  All major code sets supported  Broad 
Implementation Complexity  Lower, faster to deploy  Higher, enterprise-level 
Ideal Organization Size  Small–mid to enterprise audit teams  Large health systems 

 

PROSPECTIVE AUDITING AND EARLY RISK PREVENTION:
Can Audit Manager+ Help You Protect Revenue Earlier?  

One of the most meaningful advantages of Audit Manager+ is its ability to help protect revenue. 

Instead of identifying errors only after claims are submitted (or after denials occur), Audit Manager+ supports prospective claim reviews, allowing organizations to: 

  • Validate claims before submission 
  • Identify coding risks early 
  • Reduce downstream denials and rework 
  • Prevent unnecessary claim resubmissions 

By pairing pre-bill audits with analytics that surface systemic coding risks, Audit Manager+ helps organizations shift from reactive correction to proactive revenue protection. 

MDaudit offers denial analytics and predictive insights at scale, but Audit Manager+ stands out for organizations that want hands-on, audit-driven prevention embedded directly into daily workflows. 

AUDIT STRUCTURES:
How Do Custom Audit Checklists in Audit Manager+ Compare to MDaudit Templates?  

Audit Manager+ gives audit teams full control over how audits are structured through highly customizable checklists that adapt to specialty, facility type, payer, or risk focus. Rather than forcing auditors into rigid templates, the platform allows organizations to build, modify, and auto-assign checklists based on data elements, procedure codes, or claim types.  

This flexibility streamlines audit setup while preserving methodological consistency across auditors and departments. Custom checklists also support tailored scoring and reporting, making it easier to surface meaningful trends, reduce manual effort, and ensure audits align with internal standards and regulatory expectations. 

 

AUDITING MULTIPLE AUDITEES SIMULTANEOUSLY:
How Does Audit Manager+ Enable You to Audit Multiple Auditees at the Same Time?

A practical differentiator for audit teams is the ability of Audit Manager+ to multiple auditees at the same time within a single audit workflow. Auditors can evaluate a provider and a coder simultaneously using the same encounter.

This approach eliminates duplicate work and allows organizations to pinpoint where errors originate—whether from documentation, coding interpretation, or process breakdowns. By enabling side-by-side analysis, Audit Manager+ accelerates root-cause identification and supports more targeted education and remediation strategies.

CODE SETS:
What Code Sets Can You Audit in Audit Manager+ Compared to MDaudit?

Audit Manager+ supports one of the most comprehensive code set libraries available in healthcare auditing, allowing organizations to audit virtually every claim type within a single platform. Auditors can review CPT®, HCPCS, CDT, ICD-10-CM, ICD-10-PCS, revenue codes, condition codes, occurrence codes, value codes, type of bill, discharge status, HCCs, and more, without switching systems or relying on workarounds.  

This breadth of coverage is especially valuable for organizations auditing across professional, facility, dental, and specialty services, ensuring consistency and accuracy regardless of claim complexity. By capturing every relevant data element, Audit Manager+ enables deeper insight, stronger defensibility, and more actionable audit findings. 

IMPLEMENTATION:
How Long is the Implementation Time of Audit Manager+ vs. MDaudit?

Audit Manager+ is intentionally designed to minimize friction during implementation and daily use. Audit teams can configure checklists, scoring rules, and workflows quickly without relying on extensive IT involvement or prolonged onboarding timelines.  

Because the platform aligns closely with how auditors already think and work, users are able to become productive very quickly. This ease of use is particularly valuable for organizations with lean compliance teams that need results quickly without dedicating months to system configuration and training. 

AUDIT FLEXIBILITY:
How Does Audit Manager+ Support Various Audit Scenarios? 

Healthcare audits vary widely by specialty, payer, and risk profile, and Audit Manager+ is built to accommodate that variability. Organizations can fully customize audit templates, checklists, scoring logic, and error classifications to align with internal policies or regulatory expectations. Rather than forcing auditors into rigid frameworks, Audit Manager+ adapts to the audit methodology an organization already trusts—supporting consistency while preserving flexibility. 

AUDITOR EXPERIENCE:
How Does Audit Manager+ Keep Focus on What Auditors Need?

For departments whose primary responsibility is auditing (not managing the entire revenue cycle), Audit Manager+ delivers exactly what is needed without adding unnecessary complexity.  

Teams can focus on executing audits, tracking trends, and supporting education and compliance initiatives without navigating modules or analytics designed for broader financial operations. This streamlined approach reduces cognitive load and allows auditors to spend more time analyzing risk instead of managing software. 

BEST FIT:
Who Should Choose Audit Manager+ vs. MDaudit?

Audit Manager+ is particularly well suited for consulting firms, health systems, and organizations that audit across multiple clients, entities, or facilities. Its true multi-account architecture allows users to maintain secure, fully separated environments for each client or location while still enabling centralized oversight, standardized methodologies, and enterprise-level reporting. 

This structure supports client-specific workflows, customizable audit tools, and flexible permissioning—making it easier to balance auditor workloads, tailor audits to each engagement, and demonstrate consistency across a diverse portfolio. Consolidated analytics and roll-up reporting also give leadership clear visibility into trends, risk areas, and performance across all accounts, without compromising data separation. 

In contrast, MDaudit is often better suited for single-organization use cases where audits are managed within one health system or facility. For firms or teams managing multiple clients, facilities, or audit programs simultaneously, Audit Manager+ provides the scalability, governance, and operational efficiency needed to support growth and complex audit environments. 

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Audit Manager+ vs. MDaudit

While both platforms are respected within healthcare compliance and auditing, Audit Manager+ is the stronger choice for organizations that value audit precision, configurability, and ease of use. Its audit-first design, parallel auditing capability, prospective revenue protection, and deep customization make it especially effective for teams that want to execute audits efficiently and defensibly without unnecessary system complexity. 

MDaudit may be appropriate for organizations seeking enterprise-wide revenue integrity analytics at scale. However, for audit teams that want a solution built around how audits are actually performed, Audit Manager+ delivers clarity, control, and confidence where it matters most. 

Our team can walk through checklist setup, parallel auditing, and prospective review using real-world examples
from organizations that evaluated both platforms.