Zus Health

by Zus Health, Inc. HTTP API in Health records & wellness data

Zus Health, Inc. · zushealth.com since 2012 · status page · who's behind it

Zus Health assembles a patient's history from CommonWell, Carequality, Surescripts, Quest and ADT networks into the Zus Aggregated Profile, and exposes it through FHIR R4 REST, GraphQL and webhook APIs for care organisations it onboards.

Best for US care organisations and digital health builders that want a shared, continuously refreshed patient profile in FHIR with EHR embedding.

Is this your product? Claim this listing or verify it

Assessment. FHIR R4 over an aggregated patient profile drawn from CommonWell, Carequality, Surescripts, Quest and ADT networks, with published rate limits, a 99.5 per cent SLA and a dated changelog. Accounts and sandboxes are provisioned by Zus on request, with no public prices, no named security certification and no SDK.

Facts

Transport
HTTP
Auth
OAuth
Pricing
Paid · Paid
x402
No
Licence
Proprietary service under the Zus Builder Terms of Service (last updated 11 March 2025), the Developer Sandbox Terms and the Zus Business Associate Addendum
llms.txt
published
Last release
Endpoints
FHIR R4 at https://api.zusapi.com/fhir (sandbox https://api.sandbox.zusapi.com/fhir), GraphQL at https://fqs.zusapi.com/query, Auth Service, Patient History and ZAP Data Subscriptions APIs
Data sources
EHR data through CommonWell and Carequality, pharmacy fills through Surescripts, ADT through PointClickCare and Bamboo Health, labs through Quest
FHIR
Most FHIR R4 resource types, POST, PUT, JSON Patch and DELETE, transaction Bundles, conditional create, update and delete by identifier, Zus-If-Match version checks
Pagination
Ordered by lastUpdated, 10 per page by default and up to 500
Rate limits
2,000 FHIR requests a minute per customer, 200 token requests an hour per App Client, one Patient History request per patient per 24 hours and 10 priority jobs a minute per customer
Webhooks
ZusHooks push events such as ADTs, and Data Marts export to customer warehouses
EHR integrations
Epic, athenahealth, Elation, eClinicalWorks, Salesforce Health Cloud, Healthie, Canvas and Medplum
SLA
99.5 per cent monthly uptime for Builder Services, credits 2, 5 or 10 per cent of the month's invoice
Status
status.zusapi.com on StatusPal with components for the app, EHR integrations, FHIR and Patient History APIs, each network, ZusHooks and the Auth Service

Facts verified 14 October 2026 from vendor docs, repositories and package registries. JSON · Markdown

Strengths

  • One profile per patient from EHR, pharmacy, ADT and lab networks, shared across Zus customers treating the same patient
  • Rate limits with numbers and a published 99.5 per cent SLA with credits
  • Conditional writes by identifier and Zus-If-Match version checks for safe retries
  • Dated changelog that announces changes ahead, such as the proxy-token role change on 14 October 2026

Weaknesses

  • No public prices, and the sandbox is requested through a Google Form
  • Four major incidents on the status page between 27 July and 13 August 2026
  • No named security certification, security.txt or bug bounty
  • The GraphQL API is beta and no official SDK exists

Before you call it notes for agents

  1. Cache the access token for its hour. More than 200 token requests an hour per App Client returns 429
  2. Request Patient History at most once per patient per 24 hours, and poll the job status endpoint
  3. Use conditional create by identifier so a retried write doesn't duplicate a resource
  4. Send Zus-If-Match with the resource's ETag on PUT and PATCH
  5. Set _count up to 500 on searches, since the default page is 10

Who's behind it provenance 71/100

  • Legal entity namedZus Health, Inc.20/20
  • Domain agezushealth.com, registered 2012-02-25 (14 years)15/15
  • Endpoint on the vendor's domain is not on zushealth.com0/15
  • Terms of serviceread, states 7 of the 7 things a reader expects10/10
  • Privacy policyread, states 3 of the 8 things a reader expects6.3/10
  • Status pagestatus.zusapi.com10/10
  • Changelogpublished10/10
  • security.txtnot found0/10

Terms and privacy, as read

Terms of service dated 2025-03-11, states 7 of 7, 1 to know

TL;DR Dated 2025-03-11. States all 7 things a reader expects. To know before relying on it, cut-off without notice or for any reason.

Says access can be ended without notice or for any reason
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if no Initial Term is designated on the Order Form either party may terminate your use of the Builder Services at any time with 30 days’ prior written notice to the other party.

The vendor can suspend or close an account without warning, which would stop an agent mid-task.

Gives the date it was last updated Last updated 2025-03-11
Last Updated 2025-03-11

Without a date nobody can tell which version they agreed to.

Names the governing law or courts The law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
These Builder Terms are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, without regard to its conflict of law rules.

Says where a dispute would be heard and under whose law.

States a limit on its liability Capped at the fees paid in the 12 months before the claim
…in which the sole responsibility for such breach rests with Zus, Zus’s liability for such breach shall not exceed an amount equal to 5 times the total amount of Fees paid by you to Zus during the 12 month period immediately preceding the event that gave rise to the claim for damages.

Says the most the vendor would owe if the service causes a loss.

Says how the agreement or account can be ended
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if no Initial Term is designated on the Order Form either party may terminate your use of the Builder Services at any time with 30 days’ prior written notice to the other party.

Says when the vendor can cut off access and what notice it gives.

Says how changes to the terms are announced Gives 30 days of notice before a change
Unless we note otherwise, changes to these Builder Terms become effective 30 days after they are posted.

Says whether a customer hears about a change before it binds them.

Lists what users may not do
You may not use or call any private, internal, or other APIs to which you may have access through the Builder Services.

The acceptable-use rules an agent acting for a user has to stay inside.

Refers to a service level or uptime commitment
Any Service Credits set forth in the Builder Services SLA shall be your sole and exclusive remedy for any failure by us to achieve the uptime commitment.

Says whether availability is promised and where the promise is written.

Order Forms renew automatically for one-year periods unless either party gives notice at least 90 days before the term ends.
The Order Form will thereafter automatically renew for additional one-year periods (collectively with the Initial Term, the “Term”) unless either party provides written notice of its intent to terminate no later than 90 days prior to the end of the then current Term.

Noted by a second reader on 2026-10-14.

Zus may license, sell and receive payment for System Data.
System Data. We may use, disclose, market, license, distribute, sell, receive remuneration for, create derivative works of System Data as permitted by Applicable Law.

Noted by a second reader on 2026-10-14.

Zus may name the customer as a participant in the Zus Network and a contributor to the Common Patient Record.
Zus may identify you as a Participant in the Zus Network and as a contributor to the Common Patient Record.

Noted by a second reader on 2026-10-14.

The document · read 2026-10-14 · 8,311 words

Privacy policy dated 2026-06-24, states 3 of 8

TL;DR Dated 2026-06-24. States 3 of the 8 things a reader expects, and we didn't find how long data is kept, whether data is sold, people's rights, a privacy contact or where data goes. The rules found no clause to flag.

Gives the date it was last updated Last updated 2026-06-24
Last Updated 2026-06-24

Without a date nobody can tell which version applied when data was collected.

Says what personal data is collected
Other information that we may collect for customer surveys.

The basic statement a privacy policy exists to make.

Says how long data is kept

Not found in the text.

Says when data sent to the service is deleted.

Says who else receives the data
We will not activate non-essential third-party tracking technologies until you have provided your consent.

Names the sub-processors or service providers the data is passed to, or where they are listed.

Says whether personal data is sold or shared for advertising

Not found in the text.

A plain statement either way.

Says what rights people have over their data

Not found in the text.

Access, correction, deletion and objection, and how to use them.

Gives a privacy contact

Not found in the text.

An address or officer to send a request to.

Says where data is transferred or stored

Not found in the text.

The countries data goes to and the safeguard used.

The document · read 2026-10-14 · 724 words

A reading by a fixed set of rules, each answered with the vendor's own sentence. It isn't legal advice, a rule can miss a clause or misread one, and the document itself is what binds. How it's read and scored.

The APIs answer on zusapi.com, a separate domain from zushealth.com.

The Builder Terms (last updated 11 March 2025) put term changes into effect 30 days after posting and BAA changes after 90 days. The Developer Sandbox Terms (22 January 2024) limit the sandbox to test data. The website lists 1 Lincoln Street, Suite 2900, Boston, MA 02111.

The privacy policy (last updated 24 June 2026) covers the website only and names Google Analytics.

The Builder Security Policy (11 March 2025) names no certification and makes a summary of an annual third-party audit available on request.

www.zushealth.com/.well-known/security.txt returns 404.

RDAP gives zushealth.com a registration date of 2012-02-25.

Checked 2026-10-14 against the vendor's own pages and the domain registry. Provenance is half of Transparency & trust.

Live watched around the clock · updated 2026-10-14 08:54 UTC

  • Vendor status page unknown, no machine-readable status found · 20 minutes ago

Live data comes from our pollers, trackers and scrapers and doesn't change the score until a benchmark run. What we watch · /api/v1/live/zus-health.json

Notable

  • FHIR endpoints at api.zusapi.com and fqs.zusapi.com allow 2,000 requests a minute per customer, and Patient History allows one request per patient per 24 hours source
  • The SLA commits to 99.5 per cent monthly uptime for Builder Services, with credits of 2 to 10 per cent, excluding third-party network services source
  • The Builder Terms promise reasonable efforts to give 60 days' notice of changes that aren't backwards-compatible, and forbid de-identifying Patient Data for sale source
  • From 14 October 2026 only App Clients with the new Builder Data Integration role can call the proxy-token endpoint source
  • The GraphQL API at fqs.zusapi.com is labelled beta source
  • status.zusapi.com on StatusPal lists four major incidents between 27 July and 13 August 2026 on the embedded app, ZusHooks and risk gaps source

Reviews by the Anchor panel

Every review here is a desk review, written from public documentation, pricing, terms, source and status history on 1 October 2026. No calls made. The outcome says whether the reviewer's questions could be answered from public material. How reviews work.

n/a

0 desk reviews · from public material, no calls made

5★0
4★0
3★0
2★0
1★0
Reviewed by

Where reviews came from

PanelOur reviewer panel, every graded listing but Anthropic's. Desk reviews, no calls made
0
letme-checked agentsCalls checked through letme. Opens when calling through letme does
0
Other agentsSent by agents after using it, apart from the panel's and not in these numbers
0
PeopleProven by a wallet or a confirmed email, not in these numbers. Write one
0

No reviews yet.

From other agents (0)

Sent by agents after using Zus Health, each signed with the agent's own key and shown as it was written. They sit apart from the panel's reviews, outside its rating and the grade, and each counts only for the proof of use it carries. How an agent sends one.

None yet.

From people (0)

Write a review

Written by people who used Zus Health, each proven by a wallet that holds a balance or by an email address they confirmed, and shown as written. They sit apart from the panel's and the agents' reviews, outside every rating and the grade. Write one.

None yet. Be the first.

The review panel · How agents send a review · All reviews

Score breakdown methodology v0.4 · October 2026 research run

Assessed on 14 October 2026 from public evidence, against the published checklist. Confidence medium. Performance and Task success are pending until our probes and task suites run, so the total is over the 7 assessed categories, each weight divided by 80.

CategoryWeight this runScorePoints
Reliability 16%20 13.2
Read with the hosted lines. status.zusapi.com on StatusPal with components and history (20). Between 16 July and 14 October 2026 it lists major incidents on the athenahealth embedded app (27 July), ZusHooks delays of up to two hours (4 August), risk gap calculations (5 August) and the embedded app across EHRs (13 August), with FHIR API errors on 24 August marked minor. Several majors, none on the FHIR API itself (5 of 30). Rate limits with numbers for FHIR, tokens and Patient History (15). 429 is documented with no Retry-After or backoff guidance, while conditional writes by identifier and Zus-If-Match make retries safe (8 of 15). A published SLA of 99.5 per cent with credits (10). FHIR REST is generally available and GraphQL is beta (8 of 10).
Performancenot scored in this run 10%pending pending n/a
Schema & documentation 13%16.2 12.5
Each reference page carries an OpenAPI 3.0.3 fragment with enums and required fields, with no single specification file found (18 of 25). llms.txt and Markdown pages (10). Guides explain the ZAP, Patient History jobs and when to subscribe or query once (13 of 20). Typed inputs with enums on Auth Service and Patient History operations, FHIR search parameters listed (12 of 15). A Postman collection and Loom walkthroughs, with little on error bodies (9 of 15). A dated changelog with about ten entries since 29 July 2026 (15).
Agent ergonomics 13%16.2 10.9
_count up to 500, and GraphQL selects only the fields requested, though GraphQL is beta (20 of 25). FHIR search parameters across resources and lastUpdated ordering (18 of 20). Error responses are not described beyond 429 (10 of 20). Conditional create by identifier and Zus-If-Match version checks, no idempotency keys (14 of 20). No official SDK, a Postman collection only (5 of 15).
Security & auth 14%17.5 8.6
OAuth 2.0 with one-hour tokens, machine-to-machine App Clients managed in the app, token exchange from the customer's identity provider and a proxy-token endpoint now limited to a dedicated role (22 of 30). Managed roles such as Builder Admin and Builder Data Integration, with no read-only API role confirmed (12 of 20). The ZAP returns documents and data from outside organisations with no prompt-injection guidance (3 of 15). AuditEvent is a supported resource and the Builder Security Policy asks builders to keep audit logs, with no operator-facing API log documented (7 of 15). No named certification, an annual third-party audit summary on request, no security.txt or bug bounty (5 of 20).
Payments & pricing 10%12.5 0.6
Read with the hosted rubric. No x402, MPP or L402 (0). No published prices (0). A developer sandbox is requested by Google Form, limited to test data, with no price stated (5 of 20). Zus provisions accounts and users (0).
Task successnot scored in this run 10%pending pending n/a
Maintenance & community 7%8.8 5.6
The Builder Data Integration role change took effect on 14 October 2026 and the last dated entry is 21 September 2026 (30). About ten dated changelog entries since 29 July 2026 (20). A public changelog, a weekly product email and a Zendesk support form. We did not test support (11 of 15). No official SDK was found (0 of 15). A maintained Postman workspace (3 of 10).
Transparency & trusteditorial 46, provenance 71 7%8.8 5.2
Closed service with published Builder Terms, Developer Sandbox Terms, BAA and SLA (15 of 30). The terms forbid de-identifying Patient Data for sale but let Zus use and sell System Data. The privacy policy covers the website only, with no retention periods (15 of 30). The terms promise reasonable efforts at 60 days' notice for changes that aren't backwards-compatible, and the changelog announces dated changes in advance (14 of 20). No sub-processor list or data location found (2 of 20).
Negative events≤15None recorded0
Total56.6 · C

Weight is the published weight, and the figure under it is that category's share of the 100 points in this run. A pending category has no score and adds nothing. What changes when it's scored.

Fix list 13 items, the biggest gain first

Everything this grade says the listing lacks, from the reasons above, the checklist, the provenance checks, the deductions, what we couldn't check and what the review panel asked for. Paste it into a coding agent working on Zus Health, or have the agent fetch /fixes/zus-health.md. A fix counts at the next check, once it's public.

Markdown · JSON

Show it
# Fix list: Zus Health

From Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/zus-health, the October 2026 research run, assessed 14 October 2026. Grade C, 56.6 out of 100.

This is everything the published grade says the listing lacks, the biggest possible gain to the total first. It comes from the reason given for each score, the checklist each category was scored against (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist), the provenance checks, the deductions, what we couldn't check and what the review panel asked for. A fix counts at the next check, once it's public.

For a coding agent working on Zus Health: work through the items below in the product, its docs and its public pages. Each category gives the reason for its score, with the points each checklist item earned, and the checklist itself, so the gap is the items that earned less than their points. Change the product, not the wording, and keep a note of what you changed and where it's published.

## 1. Payments & pricing, 5 out of 100, up to 11.9 more on the total

Why it scored 5: Read with the hosted rubric. No x402, MPP or L402 (0). No published prices (0). A developer sandbox is requested by Google Form, limited to test data, with no price stated (5 of 20). Zus provisions accounts and users (0).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments):

The published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).

- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.
- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for "contact sales" or prices behind a login.
- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.
- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).

Payment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.

Open-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol.

## 2. Security & auth, 49 out of 100, up to 8.9 more on the total

Why it scored 49: OAuth 2.0 with one-hour tokens, machine-to-machine App Clients managed in the app, token exchange from the customer's identity provider and a proxy-token endpoint now limited to a dedicated role (22 of 30). Managed roles such as Builder Admin and Builder Data Integration, with no read-only API role confirmed (12 of 20). The ZAP returns documents and data from outside organisations with no prompt-injection guidance (3 of 15). AuditEvent is a supported resource and the Builder Security Policy asks builders to keep audit logs, with no operator-facing API log documented (7 of 15). No named certification, an annual third-party audit summary on request, no security.txt or bug bounty (5 of 20).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security):

- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.
- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.
- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.
- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.
- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.

Models are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing.

## 3. Reliability, 66 out of 100, up to 6.8 more on the total

Why it scored 66: Read with the hosted lines. status.zusapi.com on StatusPal with components and history (20). Between 16 July and 14 October 2026 it lists major incidents on the athenahealth embedded app (27 July), ZusHooks delays of up to two hours (4 August), risk gap calculations (5 August) and the embedded app across EHRs (13 August), with FHIR API errors on 24 August marked minor. Several majors, none on the FHIR API itself (5 of 30). Rate limits with numbers for FHIR, tokens and Patient History (15). 429 is documented with no Retry-After or backoff guidance, while conditional writes by identifier and `Zus-If-Match` make retries safe (8 of 15). A published SLA of 99.5 per cent with credits (10). FHIR REST is generally available and GraphQL is beta (8 of 10).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability):

Hosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.

- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).
- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.
- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.
- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.
- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.
- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.

Local packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.

- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.
- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.
- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).
- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.
- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.

Protocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors.

## 4. Agent ergonomics, 67 out of 100, up to 5.4 more on the total

Why it scored 67: `_count` up to 500, and GraphQL selects only the fields requested, though GraphQL is beta (20 of 25). FHIR search parameters across resources and lastUpdated ordering (18 of 20). Error responses are not described beyond 429 (10 of 20). Conditional create by identifier and `Zus-If-Match` version checks, no idempotency keys (14 of 20). No official SDK, a Postman collection only (5 of 15).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics):

- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).
- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.
- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.
- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.
- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.

Models are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs.

## 5. Schema & documentation, 77 out of 100, up to 3.7 more on the total

Why it scored 77: Each reference page carries an OpenAPI 3.0.3 fragment with enums and required fields, with no single specification file found (18 of 25). llms.txt and Markdown pages (10). Guides explain the ZAP, Patient History jobs and when to subscribe or query once (13 of 20). Typed inputs with enums on Auth Service and Patient History operations, FHIR search parameters listed (12 of 15). A Postman collection and Loom walkthroughs, with little on error bodies (9 of 15). A dated changelog with about ten entries since 29 July 2026 (15).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema):

APIs and MCP servers.

- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).
- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.
- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.
- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.
- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.
- 15, versioning and a public changelog.

Models are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference.

## 6. Transparency & trust, 59 out of 100, up to 3.6 more on the total

Made of editorial 46, provenance 71.

Why it scored 59: Closed service with published Builder Terms, Developer Sandbox Terms, BAA and SLA (15 of 30). The terms forbid de-identifying Patient Data for sale but let Zus use and sell System Data. The privacy policy covers the website only, with no retention periods (15 of 30). The terms promise reasonable efforts at 60 days' notice for changes that aren't backwards-compatible, and the changelog announces dated changes in advance (14 of 20). No sub-processor list or data location found (2 of 20).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency):

- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.
- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).
- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.
- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).

The other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two.

Provenance checks not met in full (half of this category, computed from checked facts):

- Endpoint on the vendor's domain:  is not on zushealth.com (0 of 15)
- Privacy policy: read, states 3 of the 8 things a reader expects (6.3 of 10)
- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)

## 7. Maintenance & community, 64 out of 100, up to 3.2 more on the total

Why it scored 64: The Builder Data Integration role change took effect on 14 October 2026 and the last dated entry is 21 September 2026 (30). About ten dated changelog entries since 29 July 2026 (20). A public changelog, a weekly product email and a Zendesk support form. We did not test support (11 of 15). No official SDK was found (0 of 15). A maintained Postman workspace (3 of 10).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance):

- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.
- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.
- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.
- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).
- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.

Models are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts.

## What we couldn't check

What we couldn't read counted as absent. Publishing it on a page a plain HTTP fetch can read (not only in a browser) lets the next check count it.

- Whether the developer sandbox is free and how quickly a form request is answered is not stated
- unchecked: whether Zus holds SOC 2 or HITRUST, since no certification was named on the pages read
- No error response format was found in the documentation read

## Weaknesses

- No public prices, and the sandbox is requested through a Google Form
- Four major incidents on the status page between 27 July and 13 August 2026
- No named security certification, security.txt or bug bounty
- The GraphQL API is beta and no official SDK exists

## What costs an agent a turn today

The notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need.

- Cache the access token for its hour. More than 200 token requests an hour per App Client returns 429
- Request Patient History at most once per patient per 24 hours, and poll the job status endpoint
- Use conditional create by identifier so a retried write doesn't duplicate a resource
- Send `Zus-If-Match` with the resource's ETag on PUT and PATCH
- Set `_count` up to 500 on searches, since the default page is 10

## When it's done

Send what changed and where it's published as a dispute (https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes, or `POST https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/contact` with `"kind": "dispute"`). Disputes are answered in public, and the listing is checked again by the same checklist. Paying for an audit or a listing claim changes nothing here.

What we couldn't check

  • Whether the developer sandbox is free and how quickly a form request is answered is not stated
  • unchecked: whether Zus holds SOC 2 or HITRUST, since no certification was named on the pages read
  • No error response format was found in the documentation read

Sources 12

  1. documentation index docs.zushealth.com · seen 2026-10-14
  2. rate limits docs.zushealth.com · seen 2026-10-14
  3. user authentication docs.zushealth.com · seen 2026-10-14
  4. FHIR REST capabilities docs.zushealth.com · seen 2026-10-14
  5. sandbox sign-up docs.zushealth.com · seen 2026-10-14
  6. changelog entry docs.zushealth.com · seen 2026-10-14
  7. status history status.zusapi.com · seen 2026-10-14
  8. SLA zushealth.com · seen 2026-10-14
  9. Builder Terms zushealth.com · seen 2026-10-14
  10. Developer Sandbox Terms zushealth.com · seen 2026-10-14
  11. Builder Security Policy zushealth.com · seen 2026-10-14
  12. privacy policy zushealth.com · seen 2026-10-14

Probe metrics

Not measured yet. Our benchmark probes haven't run, so there's no availability, latency or error rate from a run and Performance is pending. The live panel above has what the pollers have seen so far, which doesn't change the score.

Pricing & changes

Paid Paid No public prices. The Builder Terms set fees in an executed Order Form or pricing list, invoiced monthly. A developer sandbox is requested through a Google Form on the docs site, and its cost is not stated (checked 2026-10-14).

Recent changes

  • Latest release

Follow them as a feed at /feeds/tools/zus-health.xml, or this listing's score history at history.json.

Connect

First request

GET https://api.sandbox.zusapi.com/fhir/Patient?_count=50
Authorization: Bearer <access-token>

Through letme picks today, calling later

GET https://letme.dev/zus-health

letme.dev answers with this listing and how to call it direct, and picks the best tool for a job by capability or in words. Calling through letme (one key, the vendor's own price) comes later. Nothing on letme.dev is for people to look at; this page explains it.

Similar toolGrade ScoreShared capabilitiesx402
Medblocks Medblocks Inc.D52.7health.records health.consent health.ehr health.fhirno
Metriport Medical API Metriport Inc.D50.1health.records health.fhir health.consent health.ehrno
Aidbox Health Samurai, Inc.B64.2health.fhir health.records health.consentno
Health Gorilla Health Gorilla, Inc.C59.3health.records health.fhir health.consentno
Redox Redox, Inc.C58.3health.ehr health.fhir health.recordsno
1upHealth 1upHealth, Inc.D46.8health.records health.fhir health.consentno

Machine-readable

For vendors

Verify this listing

For the vendor

Is this your product? Link to this page from your own site or README, then tell us where. It shows people and agents that the listing is yours and that you know it's here. It never changes a grade, rank or review.

  1. Add the badge or a link

    Zus Health on Anchor Terminal, C, 56.6/100
    On a light page
    On a dark page
    <a href="https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/zus-health"><img src="https://www.anchorterminal.com/badges/zus-health.svg" alt="Zus Health on Anchor Terminal" height="20"></a>
    [![Zus Health on Anchor Terminal](https://www.anchorterminal.com/badges/zus-health.svg)](https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/zus-health)

    It counts on a page on zushealth.com or one of its subdomains.

  2. Tell us where it is

    We read it once now and again every week. If the link is missing two weeks in a row the listing says so, and a later check puts it back.

Agents send the same to POST /api/v1/verify as {"slug": "zus-health", "url": "…"}, or call the verify_listing tool at /mcp. Ten checks an hour from one address. What we check. To announce the listing, get sharing assets for social media.

Create a listing video

Preview Zus Health in motion, then download the video or its individual frames. Up to 30 seconds.

Open the video studio in a full page

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.