KLAS Contact
Contact KLAS
Contact KLAS
2025 BEST IN KLAS
Preferences
Related Series
Related Segments
Data Archiving 2022
In a Competitive Market, Who Is Being Selected and Why? (A Decision Insights Report)
Author
Ryan Oliver
Author
Jennifer Hickenlooper
Author
Doug VanWagenen
Data archiving solutions—which allow organizations to archive and access historical data from retired legacy software—continue to be in high demand. For the first time, KLAS has validated organizations that are replacing their existing archive solutions as they seek to consolidate archives, cut costs, and identify systems that can meet their needs for various types or volumes of data. To better understand what factors are influencing purchase decisions in this market with no clear leader, this report examines 23 recent or upcoming data archiving purchase decisions validated by KLAS between January 2020 and December 2021. For additional context, satisfaction data from current customers is also included. It should be noted that the decisions in this report are not representative of all data archiving purchase decisions made in the last several years.
Triyam Most Selected, Particularly by Smaller Organizations; Harmony Healthcare IT Most Considered
Triyam, the 2022 Best in KLAS winner for data archiving, is highly considered and the most frequently chosen vendor in this report sample; in every KLAS-validated decision where they were considered, they were ultimately selected. The vendor typically serves smaller organizations (1–200 beds), though KLAS has validated a handful of complex projects (i.e., when an EMR, a financial solution, or multiple solutions are archived) among clients with over 200 beds. Organizations who selected Triyam cite the price and sales process as main purchasing reasons. Triyam’s pricing structure is seen as straightforward, and organizations say the vendor is willing to adjust contract pricing terms to retain customers. In addition, organizations who selected Triyam report having a positive experience with knowledgeable sales representatives. Harmony Healthcare IT is the most frequently considered vendor in this sample and the second most selected. The vendor started with lab system archiving and has since grown to successfully manage lengthy, complex projects for large inpatient organizations; their client base also includes many smaller organizations. Organizations that selected them specifically highlight their salespeople, saying they were more professional and provided better follow-up than other vendors’. Additionally, one organization chose the vendor because the organization could actively manage their legacy financial data through the archive and retire their legacy PA system.
Galen Healthcare, who has the highest overall performance score in this report, is a longtime data archiving vendor and offers a broad range of services outside of data archiving. Organizations who selected them point to the vendor’s engagement, attentiveness, and ability to tackle aggressive timelines and deliver on promises. They also highlight how configurable the user interface is across departments. Some customers plan to use Galen Healthcare to expand archiving work within their organization. ELLKAY, who is also known for their clinical data exchange and interoperability platform, is often considered for the sales experience and cost.
Large Vendors MediQuant and ELLKAY Often Up for Replacement
MediQuant has more large customers than the other vendors in this study and has shown they can manage both lengthy, complex projects for large inpatient health systems as well as simpler projects for smaller organizations. In this report sample, the four customers who replaced MediQuant cite reasons such as the price and the time it took to implement the product and get fully up to speed, though current customers report recent improvements regarding the latter. Additionally, one customer who replaced the solution perceived its clinical data archiving as insufficient at the time. ELLKAY has the highest number of ambulatory archival clients and has been validated in recent years for an increasing number of engagements with large health systems. Of the four organizations that considered replacing ELLKAY, two ultimately decided to move to other vendors. A third organization decided to stay with ELLKAY and is working with the vendor to restore missing data from their old system. The fourth was undecided at the time data was collected. Legacy Data Access is being replaced by two customers and was not selected by any of the four organizations in this sample that considered them. Prospective customers say other vendors offered a better pricing structure for data usage and storage. One organization ultimately chose another vendor because they wanted a more robust archive that integrated better with their current EMR’s patient data.
Top Reasons for Replacement across All Data Archiving Vendors
Across all 23 decisions in this market, the top three reasons for replacement are:
- Missed timelines
- Missing data
- Lack of EMR integration
It should be noted that replacements are not always driven solely by vendor performance; when organizations are looking to consolidate archiving systems, they often choose to replace the system storing less data, as this is more convenient and less expensive.
Price, Functionality & Sales Experience Often Drive Purchase Decisions
Organizations who made a recent purchase decision often considered price, as archiving data is less expensive than continually storing data in the original system. Price is a top reason for organizations who selected Triyam, and it is also a strong factor in Harmony Healthcare IT and MediQuant not being selected. Functionality, specifically the ability to actively manage legacy financial data in an archive, is another factor that influenced several purchase decisions. The ability to retrieve necessary data on demand and use reports was also cited as functionality that organizations look for. Other common drivers in purchase decisions are the sales experience and the vendor’s up-front involvement. Organizations say the vendor’s performance in these areas indicates how well the vendor can align with the organization’s needs and goals. Particularly, organizations making purchase decisions highly value when a vendor can demonstrate the ability to meet extraction and implementation timelines so that legacy data can be retired when needed. Harmony Healthcare IT, Galen Healthcare, ELLKAY, and Triyam are all highlighted for creating a positive sales experience (e.g., straightforward quotes, thorough guidance, timely follow-up).
A Look at Other Validated Data Archiving Vendors
CITI: A newer entrant to data archiving that works with a few large health systems. Has historically provided security products and other solutions to government agencies. Presence in the market will continue to be measured by KLAS.
Clearsense: Offers a BI solution that also fulfills data archiving needs—for this reason, several organizations have been validated by KLAS as selecting Clearsense. One organization selected Clearsense because they saw the vendor as a partner with fast turnaround times.
Vendor Summaries
Vendors ordered alphabetically
Overall performance scores and customer experience pillar grades are based on numeric satisfaction ratings from current customers. Customer quotes were collected as part of KLAS’ Decision Insights data. See About This Report for more information.
Rated Vendors
“People need to understand a true archive vendor problem versus a legacy application problem. A lot of the problems we run into are vendor agnostic. One vendor we looked at put constraints on the number of times they would present the data. So that vendor had to have the anomalies figured out in two very short validation periods, or we would get charged for custom work. To ELLKAY’s credit, they turn the validation over and over again until we sign off on it. ELLKAY does the validation until they get it done. They are very flexible in that sense.” —Manager (current customer who reselected ELLKAY)
“We looked at ELLKAY’s product, and it really stood out. ELLKAY has a great product. They would be very good to go with. At the end of the day, our decision came down to a few big points for my team. Another vendor had the ability to have no noticeable downtimes and a configurable user interface. ELLKAY couldn’t provide either of those things.” —CIO (considered but did not select)
“When our organization was doing a vendor selection, we were going through a process. There was one system that we needed in an expedited fashion due to contractual issues, and our backs were up against the wall. Galen Healthcare stepped up to the plate to take things on with an aggressive timeline. They met the timeline without any issue, and the system worked perfectly as advertised. There were no surprises or issues. Galen Healthcare is a vendor that kept their promises, stepped up, took on the challenge, and delivered.” —VP (new customer who selected Galen Healthcare)
“We were considering doing financials with our chosen vendor and clinicals with Galen Healthcare, but our CIO preferred to stay with one company. Galen Healthcare was very similar to the vendor we chose. Galen Healthcare had a nice background in the clinical things. Their pricing structure was simplified. Their structure was attractive in the way that they housed the data. They didn’t have many years in the business, but they had a big focus on the clinical things. The biggest issue with them was that they didn’t do an active A/R archive.” —Manager (considered but did not select)
“We chose HealthData Archiver mainly because it was able to manage the A/R rundown as part of the revenue archive. That was important to us.” —VP (new customer who selected Harmony Healthcare IT)
“There wasn’t a whole lot of customer experience. The costs between the products we were looking at were comparable, so we made the decision to go with the company that we knew, but that might have been the wrong choice.” —VP (considered but did not select)
“We looked at Legacy Data Access in our process again, but we didn’t feel like they were satisfactory. We were looking for a bigger, more robust, integrated archiving solution. Legacy Data Access’ product was okay, but it didn’t enamor us.” —Director (replacing Legacy Data Access)
“We did an RFP and selected MediQuant’s product. We had already been using the system for some A/R archiving. We chose MediQuant out of several other vendors. The fact that we already partnered with them on some archives made a difference. . . . MediQuant is a sound company; they have always partnered well with us.” —Manager (current customer who reselected MediQuant)
“We looked at MediQuant, but they were super expensive. They were the most expensive option by a long shot. The vendor was hesitant about whether they could meet our timeline, and one of our partners who was working with the vendor was experiencing some problems with them. Those were the disqualifying features." —VP (considered but did not select)
“Fovea was a perfect fit and was less expensive than other products. Triyam is flexible and willing to negotiate. The account representative was easy to talk with and clear about what we were going to get. The representative answered all our questions. We can customize some areas of the system to meet our needs.” —Nurse (new customer who selected Triyam)
Other Validated Vendors
“We looked at CITI’s product because it was something different, and the vendor talked quite a bit about partnering with us. Most of their experience was in government agencies, and they came very highly rated. That is why we went with them.” —Director (new customer who selected CITI)
“We are moving to a single vendor archive across the enterprise. . . . Clearsense Ecosystem is being used at one of our facilities, and Clearsense is replacing all of our vendors. When I was first looking at Clearsense, they didn’t have a webpage and didn’t look like a data archiving vendor, but they are moving in the right direction. Clearsense has much faster turnaround times compared to our old vendors. We are looking at three-month turnaround times as opposed to one or two years. That is huge.” —Director (current customer who reselected Clearsense)
“Clearsense didn’t have a very good solution to be able to manage the A/R rundown as part of our revenue archive. We considered Clearsense because we had a long-standing relationship with Optimum Healthcare IT, but at the time, Clearsense didn’t have what we needed.” —VP (considered but did not select)
About This Report
Data for this report comes from two sources: (1) KLAS Decision Insights data and (2) KLAS performance data.
KLAS Decision Insights Data
All references in this report to organizations’ purchasing motivations come from KLAS Decision Insights data. Since 2017, KLAS has been gathering information as to which vendors are being replaced, considered, and purchased and what factors drive these decisions. KLAS Decision Insights data does not represent a comprehensive census or win/loss market share study. Rather, it is intended to help organizations understand which vendors have market energy and why. The data set in this report comes from 23 organizations that are making or have recently made a data archiving purchase decision validated by KLAS from January 2020 to December 2021.
KLAS Performance Data
Each year, KLAS interviews thousands of healthcare professionals about the IT solutions and services their organizations use. For this report, interviews were conducted March 2021–March 2022 using KLAS’ standard quantitative evaluation for healthcare software, which is composed of 16 numeric ratings questions and 4 yes/no questions, all weighted equally. Combined, the ratings for these questions make up the overall performance score, which is measured on a 100-point scale. The questions are organized into six customer experience pillars—culture, loyalty, operations, product, relationship, and value.
Sample Sizes
Unless otherwise noted, sample sizes displayed throughout this report (e.g., n=16) represent the total number of unique customer organizations interviewed for a given vendor or solution. However, it should be noted that to allow for the representation of differing perspectives within any one customer organization, samples may include surveys from different individuals at the same organization. The table below shows the total number of unique organizations interviewed for each vendor or solution as well as the total number of individual respondents.
Some respondents choose not to answer particular questions, meaning the sample size for any given vendor or solution can change from question to question. When the number of unique organization responses for a particular question is less than 15, the score for that question is marked with an asterisk (*) or otherwise designated as “limited data.” If the sample size is less than 6, no score is shown. Note that when a vendor has a low number of reporting sites, the possibility exists for KLAS scores to change significantly as new surveys are collected.
Writer
Sarah Brown
Designer
Madison Moniz
Project Manager
Robert Ellis
This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the full retail price. Please see the KLAS DATA USE POLICY for information regarding use of this report. © 2025 KLAS Research, LLC. All Rights Reserved. NOTE: Performance scores may change significantly when including newly interviewed provider organizations, especially when added to a smaller sample size like in emerging markets with a small number of live clients. The findings presented are not meant to be conclusive data for an entire client base.