Canada · head to head · updated 2026-08-01

Paradigm vs Tracker

AI-forward against claims-forward. Both are not stated, so the hosting decision is not what separates them.

Paradigm

Logic Tech Corp. (Ontario)

Forty-year-old Canadian system, now pushing AI charting and an AI scribe.

Deployment
Not stated
Entry price
Not published
Built for
Solo, 2–4 locations
Visit Paradigm(opens in a new tab)

Read the full Paradigm review

Tracker

The Bridge Network Inc. (Ontario)

Long-running Canadian all-in-one system with deep claims support — CDAnet v4, ITRANS 2.0 and EDI attachments.

Deployment
Not stated
Entry price
Not published
Built for
Solo, 2–4 locations, Group
Visit Tracker(opens in a new tab)

Read the full Tracker review

The short answer

Neither Paradigm nor Tracker publishes a price, so any cost comparison between them depends entirely on the quotes you negotiate.

Choose Paradigm if…

Established Canadian practices wanting AI charting from a long-standing local vendor.

It is ahead on perio charting, ai features .

Choose Tracker if…

Practices that want a Canadian vendor with claims handling as the priority.

It is ahead on native imaging, insurance eligibility, payments, online booking, digital forms and 1 more.

Where they actually differ

Of 19 modules we track, these 8 differ. The rest match, so they are not what should decide it.

ModuleParadigmTracker
Perio charting Built in Not stated
Native imaging Not stated Via integration
Insurance eligibility Not stated Built in
Payments Not stated Built in
Online booking Not stated Built in
Digital forms Not stated Built in
Analytics & KPIs Not stated Built in
AI features Built in Via integration
Show all 19 modules, including where they match
ModuleParadigmTracker
Scheduling Built in Built in
Clinical charting Built in Built in
Perio charting Built in Not stated
Native imaging Not stated Via integration
Billing Built in Built in
Claims Built in Built in
Insurance eligibility Not stated Built in
Payments Not stated Built in
Patient messaging Built in Built in
Online booking Not stated Built in
Digital forms Not stated Built in
Recall / reactivation Built in Built in
Analytics & KPIs Not stated Built in
ePrescribing Not stated Not stated
Teledentistry Not stated Not stated
AI features Built in Via integration
Open API Not stated Not stated
Multi-location Not stated Not stated
Orthodontics Not stated Not stated

Pricing, side by side

Paradigm

No published pricingchecked2026-08-01

Paradigm does not publish a price. You have to request a quote, which means you cannot budget or compare before speaking to a salesperson. No figure published.

We do not repeat third-party price estimates for quote-only vendors. Several widely republished figures in this category turned out to belong to a different product — see how we compare.

Tracker

No published pricingchecked2026-08-01

Tracker does not publish a price. You have to request a quote, which means you cannot budget or compare before speaking to a salesperson. No figure published. The site has no pricing page at all — /pricing/ returns 404.

We do not repeat third-party price estimates for quote-only vendors. Several widely republished figures in this category turned out to belong to a different product — see how we compare.

Strengths and trade-offs

Paradigm

Strengths

  • One of the few Canadian systems shipping an AI scribe and AI-assisted charting rather than promising them.
  • Forty years in the Canadian market — the claims and billing side is well worn in.
  • Recall and patient retention are treated as first-class features rather than add-ons.

Trade-offs

  • No published pricing.
  • Deployment model is not stated publicly.
  • AI claims in dentistry deserve the same scrutiny as any clinical tool — ask exactly what the scribe does and what it does not.

Tracker

Strengths

  • Claims support is the most explicitly documented of any Canadian system here: CDAnet version 4, ITRANS 2.0 and EDI attachments are all named.
  • Canadian company with a long track record — in the market since 1993.
  • Contactless payments and eServices patient communication are part of the product rather than a third-party bolt-on.

Trade-offs

  • No published pricing, and no pricing page to request one from.
  • The site does not state whether the product is cloud or on-premise, which is the first question a buyer should be able to answer.
  • Imaging appears to rely on integration rather than a native module.

Other comparisons