# Which integration platforms reduce interface implementation time by up to five times compared to manual coding?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">The "five times faster" claim shows up in a lot of vendor materials for <a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/categories/healthcare-integration-engines">healthcare integration engines</a>, so I went looking for reviews where people actually back that up with something specific rather than just repeating the marketing line.</p><ul>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/keragon/reviews"><strong>Keragon</strong></a>: A healthcare IT consultant described shipping an initial tool in a weekend that would have previously been a four-month development project. Another reviewer built a full fax-to-EMR pipeline, from incoming fax through OCR and AI classification to patient chart creation in ModMed, that would have required hiring a developer before Keragon.</li>
<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>: Hospital IT reviewers describe tasks going from days to hours. The built-in HL7 and FHIR format handling means teams aren't writing format logic from scratch, and that's where a lot of manual implementation time actually goes.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/iguana/reviews"><strong>Iguana</strong></a>: The pattern here is write once, deploy many. Reviewers managing large interface counts describe deploying to multiple sites with configuration-only changes after the initial build. At rollout scale, that compresses time significantly.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/nexhealth/reviews"><strong>NexHealth</strong></a>: In dental and medical practices, reviewers describe going live quickly because EHR connectivity doesn't require custom development. Eliminating manual patient record imports is the time recovery mentioned most.</li>
</ul><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">For teams that have actually run this comparison: was the speed difference mostly in the initial build, in testing and validation, or in what it takes to maintain things after go-live?</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: about 2 months ago
- Author title: SEO Content Specialist
- Net upvotes: 1


## Comments
### Comment 1

&lt;p&gt;The “integrations you otherwise wouldn’t build” point changes the ROI calculation quite a bit. I’d measure not only developer hours saved per interface, but also the backlog that disappears. If reusable components let a team finally connect lower-priority systems that previously never justified custom development, the value is increased integration coverage as much as faster delivery.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 1 day ago
- Author title: Writer



### Comment 2

&lt;p&gt;The biggest speed gain would probably show up in the initial build, especially when connectors and healthcare data formats are already handled. Over time, though, reusable interfaces and easier maintenance may save even more effort than the first implementation.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 3 days ago
- Author title: Marketer



### Comment 3

&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color: rgb(0, 0, 0);&quot;&gt;The Keragon example in your post is the interesting one, less because a weekend beat four months and more because a four-month project usually never gets approved in the first place. The saving there isn&#39;t on work that was already funded, it&#39;s on work that would never have cleared the bar for a developer hire. Which raises a question the speed framing tends to hide: for teams who have made this shift, how many of the integrations you now run are ones you would simply have gone without before? That count seems more revealing than any multiplier.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 3 days ago
- Author title: Tech Consultant



### Comment 4

&lt;p&gt;The Keragon fax-to-EMR pipeline example is the kind of concrete reviewer description that makes &quot;five times faster&quot; claims actually credible. A full pipeline from incoming fax through OCR, AI classification, and patient chart creation that would have required hiring a developer before is a real before-and-after, not a marketing approximation. Curious whether the time savings showed up mostly in the build phase or in ongoing maintenance once the workflows were live.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: about 2 months 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: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4