# Which healthcare integration engines offer native FHIR support and automated data translation for legacy EHRs?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">Writing a comparison piece on <a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/categories/healthcare-integration-engines">healthcare integration engines</a> for organizations that need to connect FHIR-based applications to legacy EHR systems still running HL7 v2. "Supports FHIR" in a spec sheet and "handles automated translation between legacy and FHIR formats reliably in production" turn out to be pretty different things.</p><ul>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/intersystems-intersystems-iris-for-health/reviews"><strong>InterSystems IRIS for Health</strong></a>: Reviewers working on regulatory FHIR compliance describe native HL7 and FHIR classes that handle format translation without custom code. One developer cited the ability to customize the built-in FHIR operations as what made it the right fit for their specific requirements, not just a generic compliance checkbox.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/iguana/reviews"><strong>Iguana</strong></a>: Handles HL7 v2, FHIR client APIs, X12, JSON, and XML. Some reviewers do flag wanting more native FHIR tooling out of the box, though the scripting layer covers most translation requirements when needed. What level of out-of-the-box FHIR support does your use case actually need?</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/google-cloud-healthcare-api/reviews"><strong>Google Cloud Healthcare API</strong></a>: FHIR is a first-class format here, with native HL7 and DICOM translation alongside it. Shows up in reviews from teams doing FHIR-first architectures at cloud scale and connecting multiple disparate EHR sources into a central store.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/intersystems-health-connect/reviews"><strong>InterSystems Health Connect</strong></a>: Same interoperability stack as IRIS for Health, so the same native HL7, FHIR, C-CDA, and DICOM support applies. Reviewers building cross-organizational platforms specifically call out the visual integration builder when they're dealing with mixed-format mapping.</li>
</ul><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">Has automated HL7 v2-to-FHIR translation actually been a priority in your deployments, or is the shift toward FHIR-native EHRs making that translation layer less necessary than it used to be?</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: 13 days ago
- Author title: SEO Content Specialist
- Net upvotes: 1


## Comments
### Comment 1

&lt;p&gt;The FHIR-native EHR question at the end is the one I&#39;d push on more. The practical translation burden between HL7 v2 and FHIR is still very real for organizations running legacy systems, and InterSystems IRIS for Health&#39;s ability to customize built-in FHIR operations rather than treating it as a checkbox is what makes the difference between theoretical compliance support and something you can actually build a production migration on.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 13 days ago
- Author title: Marketing Executive





## Related discussions
- [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 6
- [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section)
  - Posted at: about 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: about 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4