Armis vs MedCrypt (2026)
Both work on medical device security and they sell to opposite sides of the problem. Armis secures the environment the devices live in, discovering and classifying connected equipment across medical, operational and general technology so a hospital knows what is on its network and what is exposed. MedCrypt works with the manufacturer, building security into the device itself and supporting the premarket documentation regulators now require. A hospital cannot solve its device risk with manufacturer tooling, and a manufacturer cannot satisfy a submission with network monitoring, so these are complementary rather than competing purchases and the comparison mostly clarifies which problem you own. The pattern worth noting across both: healthcare security vendors routinely publish less about their own security posture than they expect of their customers.
- It secures the network the devices sit on, discovering and classifying connected medical equipment across the whole environment, which is what a hospital security team can actually control.
- Exposure management spans medical, operational and general technology rather than one device class, so one platform covers the estate.
- For a delivery organisation, the immediate risk is an unpatched device already on the network rather than the security of a device still being designed.
- It works with the manufacturer rather than the hospital, embedding security into the device itself and supporting the regulatory submissions that now require it.
- Securing the device at source addresses the cause rather than compensating for it, which is the only fix for equipment that will be in service for a decade.
- For a manufacturer, premarket cybersecurity documentation is now a submission requirement rather than a differentiator, and that is the problem being solved.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Armis and MedCrypt 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 | Armis | MedCrypt |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Healthcare Cybersecurity | Healthcare Cybersecurity |
| Headquarters | San Francisco, California, United States | San Diego, California, United States |
| Website | armis.com | medcrypt.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 Armis its top capability grade on several axes, including Security Certifications and Trust Center, EHR and Interoperability Depth and Deployment Model and Data Residency. Set against MedCrypt, Armis grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on 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 awards MedCrypt its top capability grade on several axes, including Model and Technology Transparency, Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. Set against Armis, MedCrypt grades higher on several axes, including Model and Technology Transparency, Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. 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 Armis or MedCrypt?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Armis grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and Security Certifications and Trust Center, and MedCrypt grades higher on several axes, including Model and Technology Transparency, Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. Armis 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 Armis and MedCrypt differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Armis and MedCrypt is on Security Certifications and Trust Center, where Armis grades A and MedCrypt grades C. That axis sits in the Regulatory and Compliance group, so it should carry the most weight for a buyer whose binding constraint is where regulatory exposure sits and who carries it.
Where do Armis and MedCrypt grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Armis and MedCrypt the same on Autonomy and Oversight Model and Commercial Transparency. 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 Armis and MedCrypt not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Armis and MedCrypt published thin or absent detail on 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 Healthcare Administrative Automation page.
These vendors have different customers and are not substitutes: one is bought by health delivery organisations to manage risk on equipment they already own, the other by device manufacturers to build and document security in products they are bringing to market. A hospital cannot buy its way out of insecure devices with manufacturer tooling, and a manufacturer cannot satisfy a regulator with network monitoring.
Both categories share a documented pattern worth naming: security vendors in healthcare frequently publish less about their own security posture than they demand of their customers, so ask each for its own attestation.