Kavera vs. BrainHQ
Kavera and BrainHQ are not competitors for the same buyer or the same job. Kavera is a clinician-facing platform that delivers a assessment battery between visits to support concussion, mental health, cognitive health, and headache care, and to document Remote Therapeutic Monitoring and neurocognitive testing billing. BrainHQ is a consumer and payer-benefit brain-training app built around adaptive cognitive exercises, not clinical assessment or billing documentation.
Who Each Product Is Actually For
Kavera is built for neurologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedists, sports-medicine physicians, and nurse practitioners who already see post-injury and post-diagnosis patients and need a structured way to monitor them between appointments — and to generate the documentation that supports billing for that work.
BrainHQ, made by Posit Science, serves a different audience entirely. Its own site describes a dual consumer-and-institutional model: individual subscribers doing brain-training exercises on their own, plus partnership tracks for health insurers (including Medicare Advantage plans, which in some cases offer BrainHQ as a free plan benefit — see SummaCare's 2026 plan benefits page as one publicly documented example), clinicians, researchers, and organizations like sports teams or the military. BrainHQ also offers a clinician-facing Useful Field of View (UFOV) assessment, but its public content is oriented around training and outcomes, not around CPT billing-code education or between-visit monitoring workflows.
The practical distinction: a physician evaluating Kavera is asking "how do I monitor this patient's PCSS score and PHQ-9 between visits and document it defensibly for 98978?" A person or plan evaluating BrainHQ is asking "how do I improve or maintain cognitive performance with short daily exercises?" Those are adjacent goals, not the same purchase decision.
Assessment and Monitoring vs. Training
Kavera's core function is standardized clinical assessment: symptom scales, mood/anxiety/PTSD screens, sleep measures, and cognitive-domain tests, organized into four clinical modules — Concussion, Mental Health, Cognitive Health, and Headache — and delivered on a schedule that produces longitudinal, visit-independent data a clinician can review and act on.
BrainHQ's core function, per its own marketing, is adaptive training across six domains (attention, brain speed, memory, people skills, navigation, intelligence) in sessions the company describes as typically under five minutes. It is designed to be practiced repeatedly to build or maintain skill, not administered as a standardized instrument to produce a scored, comparable result over time the way an MoCA, Trail Making Test, or PHQ-9 does.
This is a meaningful distinction for a prescribing clinician: an assessment instrument is designed to measure and be reproducible; a training exercise is designed to challenge and adapt difficulty as the user improves, which is a different design goal and generally not intended to serve as a repeatable clinical measurement.
Billing and Documentation Orientation
This is the sharpest difference between the two products from a practice-operations standpoint. Kavera's content and workflow are explicitly organized around the codes practices already have available to them for structured monitoring and testing — including RTM codes such as 98975 and 98978, and neurocognitive testing codes such as 96132 and 96116 — because the assessment data the platform produces is the same data that supports that documentation.
BrainHQ's public-facing content, by contrast, emphasizes plan-benefit access (BrainHQ offered free through certain Medicare Advantage plans) and clinician/researcher partnerships rather than CPT-code education. We found no public evidence of BrainHQ publishing billing-code guidance comparable to what a platform like Creyos (see our Kavera vs. Creyos comparison) or Kavera publishes. This is publicly unconfirmed as a gap rather than a documented absence — it reflects what is visible on BrainHQ's own site as of this writing, not a claim about what BrainHQ may offer privately to institutional partners.
Comparison Table
Note: neither company's research-volume claims (study counts, "years of research" language) were independently verified against a study registry for this comparison; treat such figures as company marketing statements, not confirmed facts.
Where BrainHQ May Fit Instead
BrainHQ can be a reasonable fit for a patient who wants ongoing, self-directed cognitive exercise, or for a plan or organization distributing a training benefit at scale. It is not designed to replace a clinician's structured, billable monitoring workflow, and a practice evaluating it for that purpose should confirm directly with Posit Science what documentation, if any, the platform generates for clinical billing.
How Kavera Handles This
Dr. Abrahams used BrainHQ in his own concussion program before building Kavera. Brain training is now inside the platform, next to the assessment battery, the weekly check-ins, telehealth and the billing record, so the training a patient does between visits counts toward 98978 instead of living in a consumer app you can't see. Self-Serve practices run this with their own staff. On Managed, Juliet Mott's team runs it and bills it under your credentials.