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 normalisation, 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 catheterisation laboratory at all, with a deep cardiac evidence base and its own reimbursement route. The economics differ in kind: one is a platform licence, 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 normalisation, monitoring and governance for every model on it.
- The 2026 clearance covers a double digit set of acute indications from a single named foundation model, with regulator reviewed performance behind it.
- For a health system standardising 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 catheterisation 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 | Not recorded | 2007 |
| Headquarters | Tel Aviv, Israel | Mountain View, California, United States |
| Website | aidoc.com | heartflow.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 Aidoc its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model and Technology Transparency. Set against Heartflow, Aidoc grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model and Technology Transparency and 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 Heartflow its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Set against Aidoc, Heartflow grades higher on Security Certifications and Trust Center and Commercial Transparency. 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 Aidoc or Heartflow?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Aidoc grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model and Technology Transparency and Model Supply Chain Disclosure, and Heartflow grades higher on Security Certifications and Trust Center and Commercial Transparency. Aidoc 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 Aidoc and Heartflow differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Aidoc and Heartflow is on Autonomy and Oversight Model, where Aidoc grades A and Heartflow 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 Aidoc and Heartflow grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Aidoc and Heartflow the same on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence 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.
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.
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 characterisation evidence historically under represents women. Neither publishes pricing, and the economics differ in kind: a platform licence against a per study analysis with a billing route attached.