Every comparison in this cluster has worked from public pricing and feature descriptions. What this category genuinely lacks is a rigorous, independently conducted measurement of the thing GPs actually care about most: how much time and friction each platform actually costs across a real working year. This page publishes the protocol for that benchmark before any testing runs, the same methodology-first sequence this platform uses for every original evidence asset it builds.
The method
Build the same synthetic annual portfolio, identical content, in each platform under test: GP Tools, FourteenFish, Clarity, Umbil paired with a confirmed export destination since it is not yet a standalone system of record, and BMJ Portfolio paired with FourteenFish specifically, given its direct integration. The synthetic portfolio contains twelve CPD entries, three supporting documents, one QIA, one significant event, one complaint, four PDP updates across the year, PSQ and MSF completion, and a final submission.
What gets measured
Setup time, from account creation to a genuinely usable starting state. Number of clicks required to complete each standard task, a granular usability measure raw time alone can miss. Time to create a new entry, the single most frequently repeated action across a real working year. Time to retrieve an old entry, testing whether historic evidence remains genuinely findable rather than merely stored somewhere. Time to invite an appraiser, and how smoothly that invitation actually works from the appraiser's side, not only the appraisee's. Time to organise feedback, from distributing questionnaires through to a usable collated report. Time to produce the final output, the document an appraiser and designated body actually receive. Number of duplicate fields encountered, a specific and measurable usability friction point. Number of unclear errors, testing whether the platform fails gracefully or confusingly when something goes wrong. Total direct cost across the synthetic year, tying the time measurements to the pricing this cluster's dedicated cost analysis covers separately. Appraiser usability specifically, assessed from the appraiser's own perspective rather than the appraisee's alone. And export completeness, whether everything entered actually survives into the final output intact.
The publication standard
Screen-record the entire process for every platform tested, producing a verifiable record rather than a subjective time estimate. Give every vendor a factual right of reply before publication, the same commitment this platform makes for every original benchmarking exercise it runs. State explicitly which features required paid access to test, since a fair comparison needs to account for functionality gated behind a subscription. Record the exact platform version and testing date for every product, since this category updates its interfaces and features regularly enough that any result needs a clear currency marker. And, deliberately, do not collapse the whole exercise into one overall score: report every dimension separately, since a platform that is fastest for entry creation and slowest for appraiser invitation tells a more useful story than a single blended number that hides exactly that trade-off.
Why this matters more than another feature comparison
Every platform in this category can list its own features favourably, and feature lists say nothing about how those features actually feel to use across a genuine working year. A rigorous, published, replicable time-and-friction benchmark is precisely the evidence this category currently lacks, and it is considerably more useful to a GP choosing between platforms than another article asserting which one "feels" better without a measurable method behind the claim.
What this benchmark will and will not establish
It will report exactly how each tested platform performed against this specific, published protocol, on the specific dates testing occurred, a rigorous and genuinely useful comparison within those stated bounds. It will not claim permanent rankings immune to each platform's ongoing development, and any GP relying on its eventual results should check the testing date against the platform's current version before assuming the finding still holds.
Frequently asked questions
When will this benchmark's results be published?
Once testing runs against this locked protocol, following the same sequence as this platform's other methodology-first evidence assets, protocol published first, testing conducted second, full results published with every tested vendor's right of reply honoured before publication.
Will iatroX's own products be included in this benchmark?
iatroX is a learning and evidence layer rather than a system of record, and this specific benchmark tests the submission-workflow category directly; iatroX's role in the resulting evidence would be as the source feeding whichever platform's synthetic portfolio, tested separately in this cluster's other comparisons rather than as a competing entry here.
Could a GP or practice run a version of this benchmark themselves?
Yes, and that is part of why the full protocol is published here: any reader can apply the same synthetic portfolio and measurement categories to their own shortlist of platforms, producing a personally relevant comparison rather than relying solely on this benchmark's eventual published results.