Here is my take on the issue. First, we used Phreesia. It was free for us, and we even told them we weren't going to do it correctly. I liked it, because the demographics (which don't go into AC automatically) were extremely legible. Of course, somewhere two months into it, I suddenly found out they weren't being done. Basically, my receptionist decides when she doesn't like something. Now, before anyone thinks that isn't her say (you are right), I also think since she does all the demographics, etc., I suppose she should be the one deciding how it works best to a degree.
One problem with Phreesia is that I would say it is a 5 to 1 ratio over paper when it comes to people coming up to the window to ask a question about it.
They want you to use it on every visit but that would not be doable.
IMH (which I looked at around eight years ago) was a little easier to work with then it sounds like the staff is now. One think I think should be apparent, is they are two different things. I wouldn't just look at them like electronic devices to enter data. As far as clinical use, IMH does FAR more than Phreesia. It uses algorithms based on CC to generate information for AC and does or did enter into the proper areas.
I would DEFINITELY had paid for except they continued to promise to make it easy to customize, but it was more difficult than calculus. So a patient filling out the tree for migraines would answer maybe 30 questions. Way too much.
One cool thing about it was it could be installed on your computer and you could maximize the demographics/PMH first visit screen, and it could not be taken down without a password. So, they could fill it out while you were in another room. So, to be fair, I would consider them not at all alike except they both handle the demographics. Phreesia does it better with the Wi-Fi, which they supply.
