AccurKardia vs Eko Health (2026)
Both find cardiac disease from a signal, and they collect that signal in different places. AccurKardia analyses the electrocardiogram itself, cleared Class II software producing near automated interpretation and deliberately device agnostic across ECG sources, which suits an organisation drowning in tracings that take too long to read. Eko puts detection inside the stethoscope, analysing ECG and heart sound together during a routine exam, which surfaces structural disease such as low ejection fraction that a tracing will not show, with a decade of stacked clearances and randomised evidence behind it. The dividing line is whether you are trying to read what you already collect faster, or to detect something during an exam that is not being looked for at all. Neither publishes performance by sex, age or body habitus, which is the number both should be asked for.
- The ECG analysis is cleared Class II software operating on tracings the health system already captures, so the input is standard and the output is a near automated interpretation.
- It is device agnostic across ECG sources, which matters because signal characteristics vary by manufacturer before any patient variation enters the picture.
- For an organisation with volumes of unread or slowly read tracings, the constraint is interpretation capacity and that is exactly what this addresses.
- It analyses ECG and heart sound together during a routine physical exam, which surfaces structural findings such as low ejection fraction that a tracing alone will not.
- A decade of stacked clearances each tied to a stated indication, plus the only randomised trial evidence on this side of the index.
- The reimbursement position is disclosed, which is the half of the economics that usually decides whether a primary care organisation adopts the workflow at all.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. AccurKardia and Eko Health are each graded against the same capability taxonomy, from each vendor's own public materials and the regulatory record, under the AI Health Index verification standard. No vendor pays for placement, and no vendor has reviewed this page. How this evidence is graded
Plain facts
| Fact | AccurKardia | Eko Health |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Diagnostics & Genomics | Diagnostics & Genomics |
| Founded | 2019 | Not recorded |
| Headquarters | New York, New York, United States | San Francisco, California |
| Website | accurkardia.com | ekohealth.com |
Side by Side
Each record in one paragraph
Written to be quoted whole. Each paragraph states what the AI Health Index verified about the vendor, with the caveats attached. Generated from this pair’s live capability grades, so it moves when a grade moves.
The AI Health Index awards AccurKardia its top capability grade on AI Centrality and FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against Eko Health, AccurKardia grades higher on AI Centrality and EHR and Interoperability Depth. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on Model Supply Chain Disclosure. Grades reflect evidence the AI Health Index could verify at the last review, so a low grade records disclosure the vendor has not published rather than a capability it has been shown to lack.
Source: AI Health Index, August 2026
The AI Health Index awards Eko Health its top capability grade on Autonomy and Oversight Model, Clinical and Operational Evidence and FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against AccurKardia, Eko Health grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model Supply Chain Disclosure and Clinical and Operational Evidence. Grades reflect evidence the AI Health Index could verify at the last review, so a low grade records disclosure the vendor has not published rather than a capability it has been shown to lack.
Source: AI Health Index, August 2026
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose AccurKardia or Eko Health?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, AccurKardia grades higher on AI Centrality and EHR and Interoperability Depth, and Eko Health grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model Supply Chain Disclosure and Clinical and Operational Evidence. Eko Health leads on the greater share of scored axes, but the split means the decision turns on which constraint is binding rather than on an overall winner.
Where do AccurKardia and Eko Health differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between AccurKardia and Eko Health is on AI Centrality, where AccurKardia grades A and Eko Health grades B. That axis sits in the AI Capability group, so it should carry the most weight for a buyer whose binding constraint is how much of the work the model itself is trusted to do.
Where do AccurKardia and Eko Health grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades AccurKardia and Eko Health the same on several axes, including Model and Technology Transparency, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship and HIPAA and BAA Posture. Neither holds an advantage the index can evidence on those axes, so they should not carry weight in a selection between these two.
What have AccurKardia and Eko Health not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of AccurKardia and Eko Health published thin or absent detail on Model Supply Chain Disclosure. The AI Health Index treats an absent disclosure as a gap in the public record rather than a failure of the product, so these are the axes to get in writing during diligence instead of inferring from the grade.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Clinical Decision Support page.
Neither vendor publishes subgroup or population performance, and the omission has a specific shape in cardiac signal analysis: heart sound quality varies with body habitus, and ECG morphology varies with sex, age and race, so a sensitivity figure quoted without that breakdown describes the cohort it was measured in rather than your patients. Eko publishes no health privacy or business associate detail and no commercial attestation was located.
Both are detection aids rather than diagnoses, so the clinician remains the decision point, and the useful evaluation question is what proportion of flagged patients complete the confirmatory test rather than what proportion were flagged.