Honest Comparison
ProcedureRadar vs Payerset
The short answer
Payerset is built for hospital managed care teams and health tech companies that need payer-negotiated contract rates at national scale, delivered through a six-figure enterprise contract. ProcedureRadar answers a different question: what hospitals publish as their procedure prices under federal mandate, with verified severity distributions and BCa confidence intervals, self-serve from $799/mo.
The Honest Verdict
Choose Payerset
Choose Payerset if you are a hospital managed care team preparing for payer contract renewals, a healthcare consulting firm benchmarking payer-negotiated rates across large provider networks, or a health tech company building a rate analytics product that requires payer Transparency in Coverage data at national scale, and your organization can move a six-figure enterprise contract.
Choose ProcedureRadar
Choose ProcedureRadar if you need underwriting-grade hospital procedure pricing with verified severity distributions and BCa confidence intervals, want self-serve API access from $799/mo without a sales call, and are a mid-market MGA, regional TPA, specialty payer, healthcare navigator, or early-stage insurtech that cannot or does not want to clear a $75K annual commitment.
Side by Side
| Dimension | ProcedureRadar | Payerset |
|---|---|---|
| Entry price / how you buy | $799/mo, self-serve monthly subscription; instant API key; no sales call required✓ Best | Data Lake Tier 1 starts at $75,000/yr (up to 100 billing codes, nationwide). Rate Explorer (hospital self-service platform) starts at $95,000/yr for 300-999 bed health systems. No self-serve signup; all tiers require a demo request or sales contact.Source as of 2026-07-04 |
| Data breadth / coverage | Top 100 US metros, 2,000+ priced hospitals, 15,000,000+ pricing records from hospital MRFs; payer TiC rates not yet ingested | Claims to ingest 100% of published machine-readable files from both payers and hospitals; nationwide coverage across all US geographies. Covers roughly 1.7 million care-delivery NPIs per their June 2026 field guide. Up to 300 TB of new data ingested per month.✓ BestSource as of 2026-07-04 |
| Payer-negotiated rates (TiC) | On roadmap; not yet ingested | Core product. Ingests all payer Transparency in Coverage MRFs under the CMS TiC Final Rule; normalizes negotiated rates between every payer-provider pair. The PTA (Price Transparency Algorithm) produces denormalized fee schedules from TiC data per their published algorithm documentation.✓ BestSource as of 2026-07-04 |
| Hospital MRF pricing | 15,000,000+ records sourced from federally mandated hospital MRFs under 45 CFR Part 180; per-record source attribution; shoppable procedures curated; severity distributions computed on a verified cohort | Ingests all compliant hospital MRFs as part of the unified dataset; hospital MRF data is included in both Rate Explorer and Data Lake products and enriched with NPI-to-TIN mapping and health care organization affiliations.Source as of 2026-07-04 |
| Severity distributions and confidence intervals | Verified-cohort severity distributions (p25, p75, p95, p99) with BCa bootstrap confidence intervals; public methodology whitepaper at /methodology/whitepaper✓ Best | No severity distributions or statistical confidence intervals are described in their public product pages, pricing page, or published PTA algorithm documentation. The PTA algorithm selects a representative negotiated rate using a priority-based scoring system, not a distributional model.Source as of 2026-07-04 |
| Statistical transparency | Public methodology whitepaper at /methodology/whitepaper with BCa confidence interval methodology; downloadable verified data sample at /data | PTA algorithm is publicly documented at docs.payerset.com, including filtering rules, entity classification, and priority scoring logic. Data dictionary and payer compliance scorecard are publicly accessible.Source as of 2026-07-04 |
| Developer experience | Self-serve REST API from $799/mo; public OpenAPI documentation; instant key provisioning; no sales call required✓ Best | REST API available as part of Data Lake plans starting at $75,000/yr. Also supports Snowflake Marketplace, cloud storage (S3, Databricks, AWS, GCP, Azure). All access requires sales engagement first; no self-serve API key or public OpenAPI spec linked on their public site.Source as of 2026-07-04 |
| Data provenance | Federal MRF per 45 CFR Part 180; every record traced to the named originating hospital file and MRF filing date | Tracks and indexes every payer and hospital MRF with full version history. Data dictionary and payer compliance scorecard are publicly accessible at docs.payerset.com. States data is "fully documented and auditable." NPI-to-TIN mapping enrichment applied.Source as of 2026-07-04 |
Competitor cells link to the public source they are drawn from, with the date we last checked it.
What the Differences Mean
The Core Difference: Payer-Negotiated Rates vs Hospital Prices
This is the honest answer to most of the comparison questions you probably have. Payerset built their platform around payer Transparency in Coverage data: every payer TiC machine-readable file, normalized into a unified dataset using their published PTA (Price Transparency Algorithm), covering what each payer actually negotiated to pay each provider for each billing code. If your question is "what did Aetna negotiate to pay Cleveland Clinic for a knee replacement," Payerset has built the right product for that question.
ProcedureRadar answers a different question: what do hospitals themselves publish as their procedure prices under the federal 45 CFR Part 180 mandate? Our 15,000,000+ pricing records come from hospital MRFs, covering 2,000+ priced hospitals in the top 100 US metros, with per-record source attribution and severity distributions computed on a verified cohort. These are two different data assets that answer two different underwriting questions. Knowing which one your model actually needs makes this comparison straightforward.
ProcedureRadar answers a different question: what do hospitals themselves publish as their procedure prices under the federal 45 CFR Part 180 mandate? Our 15,000,000+ pricing records come from hospital MRFs, covering 2,000+ priced hospitals in the top 100 US metros, with per-record source attribution and severity distributions computed on a verified cohort. These are two different data assets that answer two different underwriting questions. Knowing which one your model actually needs makes this comparison straightforward.
How You Buy: Self-Serve vs Six-Figure Enterprise Contract
Payerset's lowest published tier is $75,000 per year for their Data Lake (up to 100 billing codes, nationwide). Their Rate Explorer hospital platform starts at $95,000 per year for 300 to 999 bed health systems. Every tier requires a demo request; there is no self-serve signup with an instant API key.
ProcedureRadar is a self-serve monthly subscription from $799/mo with instant key provisioning after signup. No sales call, no contract negotiation, no 30-day procurement cycle. For a mid-market team that cannot move a $75K annual deal or wait out a multi-week implementation, the difference is whether there is a product to buy at all.
ProcedureRadar is a self-serve monthly subscription from $799/mo with instant key provisioning after signup. No sales call, no contract negotiation, no 30-day procurement cycle. For a mid-market team that cannot move a $75K annual deal or wait out a multi-week implementation, the difference is whether there is a product to buy at all.
Statistical Depth: BCa Confidence Intervals vs Representative Rates
Payerset's PTA algorithm selects the most representative negotiated rate for a given payer-provider pair using a priority-based scoring system. That is a legitimate approach for rate benchmarking. However, no severity distributions or statistical confidence intervals are described anywhere in their public product pages, pricing page, or published PTA algorithm documentation. The absence of this in public materials is not a definitive statement about what their platform shows internally, but it is not documented publicly.
ProcedureRadar publishes verified-cohort severity distributions (p25, p75, p95, and p99) with bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals, served directly through the API and documented in a public methodology whitepaper. We also offer a downloadable verified data sample at /data so you can audit the methodology before committing. If your actuarial or underwriting workflow requires knowing not just the rate but how much it varies and how statistically stable that spread is, our documentation surface is more explicit.
ProcedureRadar publishes verified-cohort severity distributions (p25, p75, p95, and p99) with bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals, served directly through the API and documented in a public methodology whitepaper. We also offer a downloadable verified data sample at /data so you can audit the methodology before committing. If your actuarial or underwriting workflow requires knowing not just the rate but how much it varies and how statistically stable that spread is, our documentation surface is more explicit.
Hospital MRF Data: Both Ingest It, With Different Depth
Payerset ingests hospital MRFs as part of their unified dataset, enriched with NPI-to-TIN mapping and health care organization affiliations, and cross-referenced with payer TiC data. Their stated national reach covers all compliant hospital MRFs. ProcedureRadar covers 2,000+ priced hospitals across the top 100 US metros from 15,000,000+ records, with per-record source attribution tracing each entry to the named hospital and its MRF filing date, plus severity distributions on a verified cohort of shoppable procedures. Payerset covers more hospitals nationally. ProcedureRadar adds statistical depth and explicit per-record provenance for the metros we cover.
Payer-Negotiated Rates and Coverage Breadth: An Honest Gap
Payerset ingests payer Transparency in Coverage machine-readable files and produces normalized negotiated rates between every payer-provider pair they index, covering roughly 1.7 million care-delivery NPIs per their published June 2026 field guide. ProcedureRadar currently serves hospital MRF data only across our 2,000+ priced hospitals; payer-negotiated TiC rates are on our roadmap, not shipped yet. If you need payer-negotiated rates or full national hospital coverage in production right now, those are real reasons to pick Payerset, and we would rather tell you that clearly than talk around it.
On Switching
Switching from Payerset to ProcedureRadar is most common when the buying question shifts from payer contract benchmarking to hospital cost underwriting. If you realize your model needs hospital charge-side data with statistical rigor rather than payer-negotiated rates, ProcedureRadar is self-serve: provision a key, pull from the same federally sourced hospital MRFs, and audit the methodology against our public whitepaper before you commit. Nothing is locked behind an enterprise contract or a multi-week implementation. Top tier is $7,499/mo, and you can start at the Starter tier and upgrade at any time.
Why You Can Trust These Numbers
Every ProcedureRadar figure on this page comes from federally mandated hospital Machine-Readable Files published under 45 CFR Part 180, the Hospital Price Transparency Rule. We track pricing across the top 100 US metros and have published prices from 2,000+ hospitals, built from 15,000,000+ pricing records with per-record source attribution.
- Read the full methodology white-paper for every modeling choice and limitation.
- Download a verified data sample and audit the fields before you commit.
- See how we source and validate data on our methodology page.
- Review our pricing tiers and what is included at each access level.
- Browse the developer portal for API documentation and integration guides.
Founder of ProcedureRadar, former NFL running back (Philadelphia Eagles, Minnesota Vikings), former offensive assistant coach (New York Giants), corporate finance and technology entrepreneur, Villanova University alumnus.
Reviewed by Kevin Monangai on .
When I compare ProcedureRadar to another pricing platform, I try to be straight about what each product actually does. The big enterprise data companies are genuinely good. They're built for buyers who can move a six-figure procurement, which rules out most mid-market MGAs, TPAs, and specialty payers. We built ProcedureRadar for those teams. Underwriting-grade data, at a price they can approve in a 30-minute call.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Is ProcedureRadar as comprehensive as Payerset?
- Honestly, no, in two specific ways. Payerset ingests hospital MRFs nationwide (not just the top 100 metros) and also ingests payer Transparency in Coverage data, so they have the negotiated rates between insurers and providers. ProcedureRadar currently covers the top 100 US metros from hospital MRFs only, and payer-negotiated TiC rates are on our roadmap, not yet live. Where ProcedureRadar adds something Payerset does not publish: severity distributions (p25 through p99) with BCa bootstrap confidence intervals, so you can see not just the rate but how much it varies and how statistically stable that spread is.
- Does ProcedureRadar have payer-negotiated rates like Payerset?
- Not yet. Payerset's core structural advantage is that they ingest all payer TiC MRFs, giving you the actual contracted rate between, say, Aetna and Cleveland Clinic. ProcedureRadar currently works from hospital MRFs only (what hospitals are required to publish under 45 CFR Part 180). Payer TiC rates are on our roadmap. If you need payer-negotiated rates today for contract benchmarking, Payerset genuinely has that and we do not.
- How fresh is ProcedureRadar data compared to Payerset?
- Both platforms ingest new MRF data on a rolling basis from federally mandated hospital and payer filings. Payerset does not publish a specific refresh cadence in the materials we reviewed; their data lake page describes ingesting up to 300 TB of new data on a monthly basis. ProcedureRadar runs a rolling monthly pipeline for hospital MRF updates, with ISR revalidation on data changes. Neither product is real-time; both reflect the most recent published MRF cycle.
- What does ProcedureRadar cost compared to Payerset, and how do I start?
- ProcedureRadar Starter is $799/mo with self-serve signup and instant API access. No sales call, no 30-day procurement cycle. Payerset's lowest published tier is $75,000/yr for their Data Lake (100 billing codes, nationwide) and $95,000/yr for their Rate Explorer hospital platform. All Payerset tiers require a demo request. If you are a mid-market buyer who cannot clear a $75K annual commitment, ProcedureRadar is built for you.
- Why should I trust ProcedureRadar data?
- Every pricing record carries source attribution back to the originating hospital machine-readable file under the federal 45 CFR Part 180 mandate. Our severity distributions are computed on a verified cohort (not all raw records) and reported with BCa bootstrap confidence intervals, documented in our public methodology whitepaper. We tell you where a number came from, how many records it is based on, and how statistically stable that estimate is. Payerset documents their PTA algorithm publicly as well; the key difference is that we add distributional statistics and CIs, which matter most when you are using the numbers for underwriting rather than rate benchmarking.
See the Data for Yourself
Walk through coverage, statistical depth, and API access on a quick call, or provision a key and start pulling data today.
Pricing data cited in this comparison is sourced from federally mandated hospital Machine-Readable Files. Competitor facts are drawn from publicly available materials including each company's own published documentation.
Pricing disclosure required by 45 CFR Part 180.
- Payerset public materials (July 4, 2026)
- ProcedureRadar Methodology (July 4, 2026)
Last updated: