Aidoc vs Heartflow (2026)
A platform against a single disease analysis, and they are not really alternatives. Aidoc runs detection models across an imaging estate through an operating system handling normalization, monitoring and governance, with a 2026 clearance covering many acute indications from one named foundation model. Heartflow analyses coronary computed tomography to quantify plaque and stenosis, changing whether a patient goes to the catheterization laboratory at all, with a deep cardiac evidence base and its own reimbursement route. The economics differ in kind: one is a platform license, the other is a per study analysis that bills. A cardiology service buys Heartflow whatever else it runs; the enterprise question is whether Aidoc becomes the layer everything else sits on.
- It runs many detection models across an imaging estate through an operating system handling normalization, monitoring and governance for every model on it.
- The 2026 clearance covers 11 acute findings on body CT from a single named foundation model, with regulator reviewed performance behind it.
- For a health system standardizing clinical AI across modalities, the infrastructure survives whichever algorithms get replaced.
- The coronary computed tomography analysis changes a specific downstream decision, whether a patient needs invasive testing, rather than reordering a worklist.
- The cardiac evidence base is deep and the outcome moved is measurable in both cost and avoided procedural risk.
- For a cardiology service the question is who goes to the catheterization laboratory, and that is exactly what this answers.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Aidoc and Heartflow 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 | Aidoc | Heartflow |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Radiology & Imaging AI | Radiology & Imaging AI |
| Founded | 2016 | 2007 |
| Headquarters | Tel Aviv, Israel | Mountain View, California, United States |
| Website | aidoc.com | heartflow.com |
Side by Side
Select any grade to read the note behind it.
Product updates
The latest logged changes from each vendor, newest first, each linked to its source.
Aidoc
-
Regulatory / FDA
Aidoc received FDA Breakthrough Device Designation for CARE Chest X-Ray Triage, built on its CARE foundation model, covering triage of pneumomediastinum and lobar or lung collapse.
Source -
Clinical evidence
Mercy and Aidoc released a white paper, commissioned by AVIA, reporting on five months of AI deployment across the Mercy health system.
Source -
Regulatory / FDA
The FDA cleared Aidoc's comprehensive abdomen CT triage solution, powered by its self developed CARE foundation model, bringing 11 newly cleared indications together with three previously cleared into a single 14 indication workflow.
Source
Heartflow
-
Product / capability
Heartflow PCI Navigator entered commercial use outside of clinical trials, with The Valley Hospital becoming the first U.S. institution to deploy the software.
Source
Each vendor in one paragraph
Written to be quoted whole. Each paragraph opens the AI Health Index profile of the vendor: what the product is, who buys it and what it does.
Aidoc sells clinical AI for imaging triage and follow up to health systems, delivered through aiOS, an enterprise platform that runs Aidoc's own FDA cleared algorithms alongside vetted partner algorithms and carries care coordination and patient management. Aidoc Medical was established in early 2016 in Tel Aviv and is led by cofounder and chief executive Elad Walach.
Source: AI Health Index, August 2026
Heartflow created non-invasive coronary physiology from CT. Its Heartflow One platform analyzes a coronary CT angiogram a hospital has already acquired: Roadmap Analysis for stenosis, FFRCT Analysis for the physiological significance of each lesion, simulated from a 3D model of the coronary arteries, Plaque Analysis and plaque staging, and PCI Navigator for planning intervention, now in routine use at The Valley Hospital.
Source: AI Health Index, August 2026
Questions buyers ask
How do Aidoc and Heartflow work with the EHR?
Aidoc ingests DICOM routed or queried from PACS and VNA or sent from modalities, plus HL7 messages, and returns results to a desktop widget, the native worklist, the reporting system, or PACS as a separate series. Authentication runs through Active Directory, a dedicated single sign on, or sign on through PACS, RIS or dictation software, a practical detail in a radiology department.
Heartflow describes CT studies sent securely to it without manual export and results returned into both PACS and the electronic record, with a support team that deploys the software and integrates it with PACS, record and other hospital systems. From the AI Health Index, drawn from each vendor's own published materials and the regulatory record, verified August 4, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How are Aidoc and Heartflow priced and sold?
Aidoc sells aiOS and its cleared modules to health systems under enterprise agreements through a demo, and maintains an AWS Marketplace listing, which makes the procurement channel public; the listing states that pricing depends on the duration and terms of the contract agreed with the vendor. Whether pricing runs per module, per study volume or per site, and how partner algorithms on aiOS are billed, is not stated.
Heartflow publishes reimbursement resources and a market access value dossier. The dossier records a Category I CPT pathway for AI plaque analysis of coronary CT, CMS payment for plaque analysis as a separate outpatient hospital service, a July 2025 EviCore coverage recommendation for Plaque Analysis, and states frankly that current reimbursement does not adequately pay for FFRCT. From the AI Health Index, drawn from each vendor's own published materials and the regulatory record, verified August 4, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How do Aidoc and Heartflow handle patient data?
With Aidoc, the company's security and privacy documentation describes a new DICOM object created before upload carrying only non PHI data and a newly generated identifier; analysis runs on that object, and the identifier re-attaches PHI locally when results return.
Heartflow's trust center names encryption at rest, access monitoring, audit logging, role based access control and backups, names Amazon Web Services as its infrastructure provider, and lists AI training data and bias, AI security and AI monitoring as categories a customer can ask about, with the underlying documents released on request. From the AI Health Index, drawn from each vendor's own published materials and the regulatory record, verified August 4, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which settings and specialties do Aidoc and Heartflow cover?
For Aidoc, the company reports use in more than 1,600 medical centers and names health systems including WellSpan, Mercy, Yale New Haven, St. Luke's and Renown. Validation sits at the level of each cleared indication, with its own FDA review, and the research library is organized by condition.
With Heartflow, the intended use covers adults 22 and over with suspected coronary artery disease (the combined analysis) and clinically stable symptomatic patients (FFRCT), and FFRCT's performance was validated in patients who were candidates for invasive angiography, with CT acquired within 60 days of invasive FFR. From the AI Health Index, drawn from each vendor's own published materials and the regulatory record, verified August 4, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers.
These sit at different layers, one an enterprise platform and the other a single disease analysis with its own reimbursement pathway, so a health system may run both and the comparison is about sequencing rather than selection. Neither publishes subgroup performance, and in cardiac imaging that gap matters because plaque characterization evidence historically under represents women. Neither publishes pricing, and the economics differ in kind: a platform license against a per study analysis with a billing route attached.