Annalise.ai vs Gleamer (2026)
Two European and Australian radiograph companies pointed at different films. Gleamer is musculoskeletal first, detecting fractures, effusions, dislocations and bone lesions, with a clearance covering both adult and paediatric use that is reported to be unique in that segment and a clearance study design stronger than most in this category. Annalise is chest first, with comprehensive findings coverage, regulatory footprints across several markets and greater deployment maturity. A department choosing between them is really choosing which queue to attack: the overnight trauma films or the chest backlog. Neither publishes a security attestation, which this index has recorded as a pattern across non United States imaging vendors rather than a fault unique to either, and Gleamer's multi party distribution makes the stewardship question harder to answer than it looks.
- The clearance is unusually specific, covering both adult and paediatric use for fracture detection, which is reported to be unique in that segment.
- The evidence base is one of the deepest in musculoskeletal imaging, and the clearance study design is a fully crossed multiple reader multiple case study rather than a retrospective sample.
- Distribution breadth substitutes for integration engineering, available directly and through several imaging platform partners.
- Comprehensive chest radiograph coverage across a large findings set with regulatory footprints in multiple markets, backed by a joint venture with a large radiology provider.
- Deployment maturity is greater, which matters for a modality where the failure is a subtle finding missed at scale rather than a dramatic error.
- For a health system standardising chest radiograph AI across sites, the more widely deployed platform carries fewer unknowns.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Annalise.ai and Gleamer 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 | Annalise.ai | Gleamer |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Radiology & Imaging AI | Radiology & Imaging AI |
| Founded | 2019 | 2017 |
| Headquarters | Sydney, Australia | Paris, France |
| Website | annalise.ai | gleamer.ai |
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 Annalise.ai its top capability grade on AI Centrality, FDA and Regulatory Status and Setting and Specialty Coverage. Set against Gleamer, Annalise.ai grades higher on Deployment Model and Data Residency and Setting and Specialty Coverage. 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 Gleamer its top capability grade on AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against Annalise.ai, Gleamer grades higher on Clinical and Operational Evidence, AI Liability and Recourse and EHR and Interoperability Depth. 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 Annalise.ai or Gleamer?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Annalise.ai grades higher on Deployment Model and Data Residency and Setting and Specialty Coverage, and Gleamer grades higher on Clinical and Operational Evidence, AI Liability and Recourse and EHR and Interoperability Depth. Gleamer 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 Annalise.ai and Gleamer differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Annalise.ai and Gleamer is on Deployment Model and Data Residency, where Annalise.ai grades B and Gleamer grades C. That axis sits in the Integration and Deployment group, so it should carry the most weight for a buyer whose binding constraint is how the product lands in the stack already in place.
Where do Annalise.ai and Gleamer grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Annalise.ai and Gleamer the same on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model and Technology Transparency. 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 read different films for different purposes and should be compared per body region rather than on aggregate claims, since a trauma product and a chest product share almost no performance surface. Neither vendor publishes a security attestation or trust centre, which the index has recorded as a pattern across non United States imaging vendors rather than a fault unique to either. Gleamer's multi party distribution model makes the data stewardship question harder to answer, since no business associate terms were located and the responsible party varies by delivery path.