ENTER vs. Waystar 2025: Implementation Speed and Quality Comparison

‍

ENTER vs Waystar.png

For healthcare providers evaluating revenue cycle management (RCM) solutions, implementation speed and data quality are common concerns. The transition to a new RCM platform involves more than software. It requires data migration, system integration, staff training, and operational readiness.

This comparison offers a fact-based overview of two leading RCM platforms examining their implementation capabilities: ENTER vs. Waystar. It outlines how each company approaches onboarding, what technologies they use, and who they typically serve.

The goal is to provide a direct comparison of ENTER and Waystar based on publicly available information and product positioning as of April 2025.

Understanding ENTER and Waystar in the RCM Landscape

ENTER and Waystar both offer revenue cycle management (RCM) platforms designed to support healthcare providers with billing, coding, claims, and payments collection. Each company takes a different approach to implementation timelines and processes.

ENTER, founded in 2021, is a privately held company focused on healthcare RCM. It serves medical groups, health systems, and specialty practices with an AI platform designed to automate billing workflows and reduce manual overhead.

Waystar was formed in 2017 through the merger of ZirMed and Navicure. It offers RCM tools primarily to hospitals, health systems, and large physician groups through its cloud-based platform.

In RCM, a "fast" implementation refers to a system that can be deployed quickly with minimal delay. A "clean" implementation refers to the accuracy of the setup, including properly configured workflows and error-free data migration.

Key Features That Accelerate Implementation

The speed of RCM implementation depends heavily on how the system connects with existing tools and how efficiently it can be configured. While both ENTER and Waystar offer features that affect implementation timelines, they take different approaches.

EHR Integration Capabilities

ENTER integrates with electronic health record (EHR) systems using open APIs that automatically map data fields between systems. This reduces manual setup time and allows for faster validation of patient and billing information.

Waystar connects to EHRs through standardized interfaces that often require custom configuration. The process typically includes multiple testing cycles to ensure accurate data exchange between systems.

Integration Timelines for Popular EHR Systems:

Contract Management and Payer Setup

Setting up payer contracts is one of the earliest and most crucial steps in RCM implementation. This process includes loading fee schedules, configuring reimbursement rules, and establishing connections with clearinghouses to facilitate claim submission and payment processing.

ENTER uses AI tools to extract contract terms automatically and apply payer-specific rules without manual entry. The system updates reimbursement logic based on payer changes with minimal intervention.

Waystar offers contract management tools that require manual data entry for fee schedules and reimbursement rules. Updates to payer information typically require scheduled maintenance and staff oversight.

How AI and Automation Drive Faster Results

Not all automation is created equal.

While both ENTER and Waystar use automation, only one learns and improves in real time.

ENTER’s AI is Embedded Across the Entire Platform

ENTER builds AI into every part of its platform. During implementation, the system can learn from test claims, automatically adjust workflows, and minimize manual configuration. ENTER’s AI continues to improve over time as it processes more data.

Waystar, in contrast, relies on static, rule-based logic. Implementation requires manual setup of these rules based on practice workflows and payer requirements. The system follows these rules consistently but doesn't learn or adapt automatically.

Claim Scrubbing: Smarter from Day One

Claim scrubbing is the process of identifying and correcting errors before submitting claims to insurance payers. How this process is set up significantly affects implementation speed and initial claim accuracy.

ENTER's AI automatically detects coding errors, missing information, and payer-specific requirements. The system can correct many issues without staff intervention, which reduces the time spent testing and adjusting claims during implementation.

Waystar’s rule-based claim scrubbing flags potential errors for staff review. These rules need to be manually configured during implementation based on common claim rejections and payer requirements.

• Error detection capabilities: ENTER's AI identifies missing modifiers, code mismatches, and demographic errors automatically. Waystar flags these issues based on pre-configured rules that require manual maintenance.
• Implementation impact: ENTER's adaptive approach reduces failed test claims and shortens the implementation timeline. Waystar's approach may require additional testing rounds and manual adjustments.

Automated Denial and Payment Tracking

Setting up denial management and payment tracking workflows is a critical component of RCM implementation. These processes determine how the system handles rejected claims and payment reconciliation.

ENTER automates this process by categorizing denials and recommending corrective actions based on real-time AI analysis. During implementation, this reduces the time spent creating manual workflows for different denial types. The system matches payments to claims using pattern recognition, which simplifies reconciliation setup and minimizes human error.

Waystar, in contrast, requires manual configuration of denial workflows based on common rejection reasons. Payment posting rules need to be set up for each payer, which extends the implementation timeline.

Evaluating Clearinghouse and Claims Management

Connecting to clearinghouses and setting up claims management processes affects how quickly an RCM system can go live. Both ENTER and Waystar handle these connections differently.

Speed of Clearinghouse Integration

ENTER connects directly to major clearinghouses using built-in interfaces. This approach reduces the number of enrollment forms and credentialing steps during implementation. Most connections can be established within 5-10 days.

Waystar operates its own clearinghouse network. While this can streamline some connections, it often requires additional enrollment steps for certain payers. As a result, the process typically takes 10-21 days depending on the provider's payer mix.

Claims Submission and Reconciliation

ENTER uses a unified platform that combines claims submission and payment reconciliation. Templates adjust automatically based on payer requirements, minimizing the need for custom configuration during implementation. Payments are matched to claims using AI-driven logic.

Waystar's modular approach requires separate configuration of claims submission and reconciliation workflows. Templates need to be customized for different payers, and reconciliation rules must be set up manually during implementation.

Pricing Structures and Implementation Costs

The cost of implementing an RCM system includes both initial setup fees and ongoing operational expenses. ENTER and Waystar use different pricing models that affect the total cost of ownership.

Subscription vs. Transaction Fees

ENTER uses a subscription pricing model based on practice size or provider count. This approach provides predictable monthly costs regardless of claim volume. Implementation is typically included in the subscription fee.

Waystar charges based on the number of claims processed or transactions completed. Implementation may incur separate setup fees, depending on the complexity of the integration and the number of features enabled.

Ongoing Maintenance and Updates

After implementation, both platforms differ in how they manage system maintenance and platform updates.

ENTER delivers automatic updates through its cloud platform without disrupting service. New features and payer rule changes are applied in the background without requiring manual intervention or additional fees.

Waystar provides scheduled updates that may require planned maintenance windows. Some updates might need manual configuration or testing, particularly if they affect custom workflows created during implementation.

Comparing Support During Implementation

The quality of implementation support significantly affects how quickly and smoothly an RCM system can go live. Both companies offer implementation assistance, but with different approaches and timelines.

ENTER provides a dedicated implementation team, including a project manager, technical specialist, and RCM expert. The team follows a structured process that incorporates automated testing and validation to reduce manual effort. Implementation typically takes 30 - 45 days from contract signing to go-live.

Waystar assigns an account manager and implementation coordinator who guide the process using standardized templates and checklists. The implementation relies on thorough documentation and scheduled check-ins. Implementation typically takes 60-90 days from contract signing to go-live.

Training resources also differ between the platforms. ENTER offers in-app guidance, video tutorials, and interactive documentation that updates automatically with new features. Waystar provides scheduled webinars, PDF guides, and knowledge base articles that are updated periodically.

Real-World Feedback on Implementation Experiences

Customer reviews provide insight into actual implementation experiences with both platforms. Reviews from healthcare providers who have implemented either ENTER or Waystar highlight several consistent themes.

ENTER users frequently report faster implementation times, with most completing the process within the expected 30-45 day timeframe. Users mention that the AI-assisted setup reduces manual configuration and helps identify potential issues early in the process.

Waystar users describe more variable implementation times, with many taking the full 60-90 days or longer. Reviews mention that the thoroughness of the process helps ensure accuracy, but that the number of manual steps can extend timelines and contribute to delays.

Both platforms receive positive feedback for their support teams, with ENTER scoring slightly higher for responsiveness during implementation. Waystar receives praise for its structured approach and comprehensive documentation.

Making the Right Choice for Faster, Cleaner RCM

When comparing ENTER and Waystar for implementation speed and quality, several differences emerge.

ENTER's AI-first approach automates many implementation tasks that Waystar handles manually. As a result, ENTER often delivers faster implementation timelines and reduces the need for resources from the healthcare organization's staff during onboarding.

Waystar's established processes and comprehensive documentation provide a structured implementation experience that many larger organizations prefer, even if it takes longer to complete.

For practices seeking the fastest implementation with minimal disruption, ENTER's automated approach may be preferable. For organizations that prioritize established processes and have more complex requirements, Waystar's methodical implementation may be worth the additional time.

To learn more about ENTER's implementation process and how it compares to your current RCM workflows, you can request a consultation at https://www.enter.health.

Frequently Asked Questions About RCM Implementation Comparisons

What factors most influence RCM implementation speed?

EHR integration complexity, payer enrollment requirements, and the amount of manual configuration needed are the primary factors affecting implementation speed. AI-assisted platforms like ENTER typically implement faster than systems requiring extensive manual setup.

How do ENTER and Waystar differ in their approach to EHR integration?

ENTER uses API-based integration with automated data mapping that reduces manual configuration. Waystar uses standard interfaces that often require more custom setup and testing cycles before going live.

What makes an RCM implementation "clean" versus problematic?

A clean implementation has accurate data mapping, well-configured workflows, and minimal errors during initial claims processing. Problematic implementations often involve data mapping issues, incorrect payer setups, and high initial claim rejection rates.

How long does a typical RCM implementation take for each platform?

ENTER implementations typically take 30-45 days from contract signing to go-live. Waystar implementations usually take 60-90 days, depending on practice size and complexity.

What ongoing support is available after implementation is complete?

ENTER provides continuous updates and in-app guidance as part of its subscription. Waystar offers scheduled updates and access to a knowledge base, with additional training available as needed.

‍