Aesthetics360 vs Archy (2026)
Two AI products for practices that are as much retail businesses as clinical ones. Aesthetics360 builds a multi agent platform for elective care across aesthetics, plastics and venous medicine, where the practice is measured on consultation to procedure conversion and the documentation is only part of the job. Archy is a cloud practice management platform for dentistry with native AI, so charting, imaging, insurance and payments live in one system and the scribe runs inside the chart. Neither competes with the other clinically. What they share, and what neither addresses, is that in cash pay settings the consultation record doubles as marketing and conversion material, and nothing published says how those uses are separated or what the patient is told.
- It is a multi agent platform built for elective care specifically, covering aesthetics, plastics and venous medicine, which are cash pay settings with different documentation and conversion needs.
- Elective practices are sold on conversion and follow up as much as on documentation, and the product is shaped for that rather than adapted to it.
- For a practice whose revenue depends on consultation to procedure conversion, a platform built around that funnel addresses the actual business.
- It is a complete cloud practice management platform with native AI, so charting, imaging, insurance and payments sit in one system rather than beside each other.
- The scribe runs natively with access to the chart rather than pasting a note in from outside.
- For a dental practice replacing its platform anyway, the AI arrives with it rather than as a second procurement.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Aesthetics360 and Archy 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 | Aesthetics360 | Archy |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Ambient Scribes | Ambient Scribes |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2020 |
| Headquarters | Not recorded | San Jose, California, United States |
| Website | aesthetics360.com | archy.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 Aesthetics360 its top capability grade on AI Centrality. Set against Archy, Aesthetics360 grades higher on AI Centrality, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship and Setting and Specialty Coverage. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on AI Governance and Bias Disclosure and AI Liability and Recourse. 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 records no top capability grade for Archy on any axis it scores. Set against Aesthetics360, Archy grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, HIPAA and BAA Posture and FDA and Regulatory Status. 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 Aesthetics360 or Archy?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Aesthetics360 grades higher on AI Centrality, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship and Setting and Specialty Coverage, and Archy grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, HIPAA and BAA Posture and FDA and Regulatory Status. Archy 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 Aesthetics360 and Archy differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Aesthetics360 and Archy is on AI Centrality, where Aesthetics360 grades A and Archy grades C. 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 Aesthetics360 and Archy grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Aesthetics360 and Archy the same on several axes, including Model and Technology Transparency, Model Supply Chain Disclosure and Clinical and Operational Evidence. 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 Aesthetics360 and Archy not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Aesthetics360 and Archy published thin or absent detail on AI Governance and Bias Disclosure and AI Liability and Recourse. 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 Ambient Scribes page.
An earlier version of this comparison said Archy publishes no business associate terms. Its Master Service Agreement attaches one in full. Corrected 15 September 2026.
Both serve practices that are partly retail businesses, and that shapes the exposure: documentation in cash pay elective care doubles as marketing and conversion material, and neither vendor publishes how those uses are separated or what a patient is told about how their consultation record is used.
Neither publishes an accuracy figure or an attestation of its own. Archy publishes its business associate agreement in full as an exhibit to its Master Service Agreement, effective on acceptance, but no retention period for AI inputs and no training use statement was located, though the agreement limits use to providing the service and to de identified product usage data.
Neither publishes performance across accents or languages, which matters in consultation heavy settings.