The Brief,October 10→

The week in one lineTwo prostate cancer tests stopped estimating risk and started choosing treatment, and an inpatient coding platform said it no longer needs a human on the case. Four FDA decisions added new readings to machines hospitals already own, which makes them the rare upgrade that never needs the loading dock. Read the issue →

An Independent Reference for Health-System AI

Evaluating AI vendors in healthcare, on the record.

AI Health Index is an independently maintained research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively: where health systems find and compare artificial intelligence vendors across clinical and operational categories. Every record carries a verification date. Every figure carries its source. No vendor pays for placement.

AI Health Index last updatedOctober 18, 2026
Browse the vendor directory →
Index Snapshot

Every published vendor carries a grade on all 15 axes. Partial records are withheld rather than published with gaps, which is what makes two records comparable. How the framework works

Pricing research covers 664 of 670 vendors, with estimates labeled as estimates. Last index update October 18, 2026. Counts reconciled October 18, 2026.

At a Glance
  • AI Health Index is an independent reference grading 670 healthcare AI vendors across 15 capability axes in 24 categories, with 771 head to head comparison pages.
  • Every record carries a verification date and a source basis. The most recent index update is October 18, 2026.
  • Start with the vendor directory, the methodology, or the change log.
The Index

Categories

Head to Head

Featured Comparisons

GRAIL vs Guardant Health

GRAIL and Guardant Health both screen for cancer from a blood draw using methylation classifiers run in their own laboratories. The difference that decides between them is scope against standing, since one test looks for many cancers without FDA approval and the other for one cancer with it. GRAIL's Galleri looks for a cancer signal across more than 50 cancer types in adults at elevated risk and predicts where it started, as a prescription laboratory developed test priced at $949. In PATHFINDER 2, 60.3 percent of positive results led to a cancer diagnosis and 99.2 percent of negative results held at 12 months. The randomized NHS-Galleri trial of 142,250 people did not meet its primary endpoint of fewer late stage cancers. An FDA advisory panel voted 7 to 2 in September 2026 that benefits outweigh risks, and a decision is pending. Guardant Health's Shield, FDA approved in July 2024, screens average risk adults 45 and over for colorectal cancer and is covered by Medicare. It detected 83.1 percent of colorectal cancers in the ECLIPSE study and 13.2 percent of advanced adenomas, so it finds most cancers but few precancerous lesions, and a positive result goes on to colonoscopy. Guardant also sells blood and tissue tests for therapy selection and recurrence. A program adding a blood based colorectal screening option for average risk adults fits Shield. A program offering broader cancer screening to higher risk adults, alongside guideline screening, fits Galleri.

Read full comparison →
Foundation Medicine vs Guardant Health

Foundation Medicine and Guardant Health both profile advanced cancers in their own laboratories to match patients with therapies. The comparison buyers search for is FoundationOne CDx on tissue against Guardant360 on blood, though each company now sells both kinds of test. FoundationOne CDx is an FDA approved tissue test of 324 genes with microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden, more than 40 companion diagnostic indications and a median turnaround of eight days, with national Medicare coverage for qualifying patients. Liquid biopsy, hematologic, residual disease and germline tests sit alongside it. HRDsig, a homologous recombination deficiency signature built with machine learning, is reported as a labeled professional service outside the approved assay. Guardant Health's companion diagnostics work from blood. Guardant360 CDx and Guardant360 Liquid CDx, the second approved in May 2026, profile advanced solid tumors from a blood draw, with Guardant360 Tissue, Guardant Reveal for recurrence and a hereditary panel offered as laboratory developed tests. Its tests order and result inside Epic and Flatiron OncoEMR, with order sets and reflex testing triggered by clinical events. Shield, its FDA approved colorectal screening test, sits outside this decision. A practice that wants tissue profiling with the widest set of approved therapy matches fits Foundation Medicine. A practice that starts from a blood draw and wants ordering built into its record system fits Guardant.

Read full comparison →
Invitae vs Myriad Genetics

Invitae and Myriad Genetics both run germline genetic testing in their own laboratories and return results to ordering clinicians inside Epic. The difference that decides between them is where each applies machine learning and how much a patient can know about cost up front. Invitae, owned by Labcorp since 2024, tests across oncology, women's health, pediatrics and rare disease, cardiology and neurology, and genetic counseling comes at no added cost. Its Evidence Modeling platform trains gene specific models on curated evidence, keeps only those that pass accuracy thresholds and hands calibrated predictions to the laboratory's scientists as one line of evidence when they classify a variant. More than five million patients have been tested, and more than 400 customer record integrations are live. Myriad Genetics sells the MyRisk hereditary cancer panel, GeneSight, Prequel, Foresight and tumor and residual disease tests. RiskScore, offered with MyRisk, combines a polygenic risk model with the Tyrer-Cuzick model to estimate a woman's lifetime breast cancer risk, weights its variants by genetic ancestry and reports results by ancestry group. Patients see assistance tiers from $0 to $249, and Myriad holds HITRUST r2 certification. A practice ordering across many specialties with counseling built in fits Invitae. A breast cancer risk program that wants a polygenic risk estimate and clear patient cost tiers fits Myriad.

Read full comparison →
Editorial Standard

How vendors are evaluated

Every vendor in the AI Health Index is assessed across fifteen structured capability axes in four groups: AI capability, regulatory and compliance, integration and deployment, and commercial. Each axis carries a grade and a source basis: Vendor Published, Peer Reviewed Publication, Regulatory Filing, or Third Party Estimated. Figures labeled “Estimated” have not been confirmed by the vendor.

Read the full methodology →
Questions

About the index

How are vendors evaluated?

Every vendor in the AI Health Index is graded across fifteen capability axes in four groups: AI capability, regulatory and compliance, integration and deployment, and commercial. The fifteen axes are AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence, Commercial Transparency, Setting and Specialty Coverage, HIPAA and BAA Posture, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, Autonomy and Oversight Model, FDA and Regulatory Status, AI Governance and Bias Disclosure, Model and Technology Transparency, EHR and Interoperability Depth, Deployment Model and Data Residency, Security Certifications and Trust Center, AI Liability and Recourse, Model Supply Chain Disclosure. AI Health Index grades are drawn from public artifacts: vendor documentation, trust centers, regulatory databases, EHR marketplace listings, and published research.

What does a grade mean?

A grade is a letter judgment from A to D that the index stands behind for a single axis, and it measures what a buyer can verify from public sources on the date shown rather than how good the product is. An A is verifiable evidence at the top of the axis; a D means nothing published that a buyer can check, which records an absence far more often than a defect. Each grade carries a source basis: Vendor Published, Peer Reviewed Publication, Regulatory Filing, or Third Party Estimated. Figures labeled Estimated have not been confirmed by the vendor, and Not Rated records the absence of a judgment rather than a low one.

What research platform compares healthcare AI vendors objectively?

AI Health Index is an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. It grades every vendor it covers on the same fifteen capability axes, from that vendor’s own public materials and the regulatory record, and publishes the artifact each grade was read from alongside the date it was checked. The independent research behind a grade is documentation, trust centers, regulatory databases, EHR marketplace listings and peer reviewed publication rather than a customer survey, a paid submission, or an analyst briefing. No vendor pays for placement, no vendor reviews its own grades before publication, and the index publishes no aggregate score and therefore names no overall winner.

How often is the index updated?

Continuously. Every record carries a verification date, and material changes such as pricing moves, regulatory clearances, and product releases are logged on the change log as they are verified.

What regulatory frameworks does the index reference?

Regulatory posture is assessed against public frameworks, including the FDA guidance on software as a medical device and the WHO guidance on the ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health.