Comparison
FertiliCore vs eIVF
eIVF is built around the economics of a United States fertility practice — insurance eligibility, billing, SART reporting, patient and donor portals. FertiliCore is built around the clinical and laboratory record. The right choice depends almost entirely on which of those is your problem.
Their product
Who eIVF is.
Described from the vendor's own published materials. Figures a vendor states about itself are presented as their claims, not as verified fact.
eIVF is produced by PracticeHwy.com, Inc., based in the Dallas area, and has been in the market since 2002. It is a cloud-native system and one of the established fertility EMRs in the United States.
The vendor states that its clinics manage roughly one-third of all fertility cycles in the United States. Their published product covers the clinical record, embryology and andrology, billing with insurance eligibility verification, scheduling, electronic prescribing, patient and donor portals, quality assurance and an analytics product branded Fertility Vision.
Their published materials describe interfaces to genetics reference laboratories — a collaboration with Igenomix allows tests to be ordered and results returned into the chart — and to customer-relationship systems.
Side by side
Twelve capabilities, the same twelve on every page.
Where a row reads not published, it means we could not find the capability described in the vendor's public materials — which is not the same as it being absent from their product. Ask them directly.
| Capability | FertiliCore | eIVF |
|---|---|---|
| Reproductive genetics assays modelled Running the laboratory, not only filing its result | Yes aCGH matrices, FISH, QF-PCR, Y-microdeletion, HLA, fragile-X, thrombophilia, DNA fingerprint | No Genetics is handled by interfacing to reference laboratories such as Igenomix |
| Per-chromosome PGT result matrix | Yes Copy number per chromosome per embryo, plus segmental imbalances sized in megabases | Not published Not described in their published materials |
| Cryostorage mapped to straw position | Yes Tank, canister, goblet and straw as a physical position register | Not published Not described in their published materials |
| On-premise deployment | Yes Containerised, your hardware, standard PostgreSQL | Not published Not described in their published materials |
| Arabic interface, right-to-left | Yes English, Turkish and Arabic — server messages and clinical lookups included | Not published Not described in their published materials |
| HL7 v2, FHIR R4 and DICOM published | Yes Five connectors, each shipping disabled until configured | Not published Not described in their published materials |
| National registry submission | Partial A general submission connector, proven against one registry | Yes SART reporting as part of a United States practice workflow |
| Consent records and witness-event log | Yes Templates, signatures, per-cycle consent checklist, witness events | Not published Not described in their published materials |
| Barcode or RFID witnessing hardware Scanning at the bench, at each handling step | No No first-party hardware — integrate the witnessing vendor you choose | Not published Not described in their published materials |
| Billing and revenue cycle | No Deliberately out of scope — integrates to your finance system | Yes Billing with insurance eligibility verification |
| Patient-facing portal or app | No Not offered today | Yes Patient portal and donor portal both published |
| Donor programme management | No Sperm source is recorded; there is no donor registry or matching | Yes Donor portal published as part of the product |
Be fair first
Where eIVF is the better choice.
A comparison page that finds no merit in the competitor is an advertisement. These are the cases where we would tell you to buy theirs.
Revenue cycle, which FertiliCore does not do at all
Billing, insurance eligibility verification and the whole financial workflow of a US practice are in the product. In the United States market this is frequently the primary purchase driver, and FertiliCore has no answer to it.
Patient and donor portals
Both are published parts of eIVF. Donor programme management in particular is something FertiliCore does not model at all — there is no donor registry, no screening and consent workflow, and no donor-to-recipient matching.
United States market fit
SART reporting, e-prescribing to US pharmacies, and two decades of operating inside the American regulatory and insurance environment. If you are a US clinic, that accumulated fit is worth a great deal.
The difference
Where FertiliCore is a different kind of system.
Genetics performed rather than ordered
eIVF's published strength in genetics is the interface to reference laboratories such as Igenomix — ordering a test and receiving a result. FertiliCore models the laboratory that generates the result: per-chromosome copy number, marker-level allele tables, FISH signal counts, contamination exclusion. Different problems, and only one of us solves the second.
Deployment outside the cloud
eIVF is cloud-native. For clinics under data-localisation rules, or hospital IT departments that will not accept a hosted clinical record, that is a hard stop rather than a preference. FertiliCore runs on your own infrastructure.
Markets eIVF is not built for
eIVF is shaped by the American insurance model. If you are operating in Türkiye, the Gulf or elsewhere, much of that machinery is not merely unnecessary — it is a permanent tax on every screen. FertiliCore ships in English, Turkish and Arabic and assumes nothing about your payer.
Pick eIVF if
Choose eIVF if you are a United States practice where billing, insurance eligibility and SART reporting drive the decision, or if you run a donor programme that needs to be managed in the system.
Pick FertiliCore if
Choose FertiliCore if you run genetics in house, if your records cannot live in a vendor's cloud, or if you are outside the United States and do not need its billing model.
FertiliCore and eIVF
Does FertiliCore submit to SART?
No. Our registry connector is built and proven against one national registry, and SART is not it. A United States clinic with a SART obligation should treat that as a genuine gap rather than something we will have working by go-live.
Can FertiliCore handle our donor programme?
Not properly. The system records a sperm source, but there is no donor registry, no donor screening and consent workflow, no anonymous-versus-known distinction and no donor-to-recipient matching or quarantine. If donor work is a significant part of your practice, this is a real limitation you should weigh heavily.
How do we handle billing if we choose FertiliCore?
Through your existing finance system. FertiliCore deliberately stays out of billing and integrates outward instead — the HL7 v2 interface carries demographics and results to and from a hospital information system, which is how most of the clinics we work with already handle the financial side.
Sources and method
This comparison was last reviewed in July 2026. Every statement about eIVF is drawn from the vendor's own published materials, linked below, and clinic counts or country counts a vendor publishes about itself are presented as that vendor's claim rather than as verified fact. Software changes; if you believe anything here is out of date or unfair, write to omnia@omnicore.com.tr and we will correct it. eIVF and other product names are the trademarks of their respective owners, and no affiliation or endorsement is implied.
Other comparisons
Compare it against your own case
The most useful comparison is not a table. Bring a real case — a PGT cycle, a difficult cryo audit, a migration you are dreading — and we will show you how it goes through.