Artrya vs Caristo Diagnostics (2026)
Two vendors that both refuse to blur their regulatory story, measuring different things from the same scan. Caristo measures inflammation: its FAI-Score quantifies the fat attenuation gradient in perivascular tissue, and in the Lancet published ORFAN registry, patients with minimal plaque and zero calcium but the highest inflammation carried roughly 9.5 to 11 times the cardiac mortality risk, the risk conventional plaque assessment calls clean. Artrya measures plaque, fast and in the open: Salix returns a point of care assessment in under 10 minutes with no external reading teams, and ASX listing forces a level of commercial disclosure rare in this index, down to naming plaque as roughly 70 percent of its own revenue. The US regulatory split decides most purchases: Artrya's plaque module is FDA cleared in the established Category I payment pathway, while Caristo's inflammation product, its actual differentiator, is cleared in the UK, EU, and Australia but pending FDA clearance and holding only a Category III tracking code in the US. If your failure mode is the patient whose scan looks clean and you practice where FAI is cleared, start with Caristo. If your failure mode is US plaque quantification with a resolved payment path and legible economics, start with Artrya.
- The clean scan is your blind spot: in the Lancet published ORFAN registry, patients with minimal plaque and zero calcium but high coronary inflammation showed roughly 9.5 to 11 times the cardiac mortality risk, a signal plaque volume tools like Salix do not measure.
- Independent evidence maturity: ORFAN externally validated the prognostic algorithm in an NHS population and CRISP-CT established incremental value beyond traditional risk factors, where Artrya's SAPPHIRE study is announced but has not yet reported, graded C on clinical evidence against Caristo's A.
- You practice where FAI is cleared: CaRi-Heart FAI-Score is regulatory cleared in the UK, EU, and Australia today, measuring biology no competitor in this pairing captures.
- You want the pricing and the exposure in the open: ASX listing forces disclosure, so Artrya publishes its fee per scan basis, the US$950 Category I reimbursement rate from January 2026, and even its own concentration risk that plaque is roughly 70 percent of projected revenue, graded A on commercial transparency against Caristo's C.
- US reimbursement must be resolved, not pending: Salix Coronary Plaque is FDA cleared under K251837 and sits in the established Category I plaque pathway, where Caristo's differentiating inflammation product holds only a Category III tracking code in the US.
- Point of care speed with no layer: assessments in under 10 minutes with no external reading teams, graded A on autonomy, where Caristo's cloud pipeline does not disclose the extent of any quality control step.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Artrya and Caristo Diagnostics 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 | Artrya | Caristo Diagnostics |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Radiology & Imaging AI | Radiology & Imaging AI |
| Headquarters | Perth, Western Australia, Australia | Oxford, England, United Kingdom |
| Website | artrya.com | caristo.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 Artrya its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against Caristo Diagnostics, Artrya grades higher on Autonomy and Oversight Model, EHR and Interoperability Depth 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, July 2026
The AI Health Index awards Caristo Diagnostics its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, Model and Technology Transparency and Clinical and Operational Evidence. Set against Artrya, Caristo Diagnostics grades higher on several axes, including Model and Technology Transparency, Clinical and Operational Evidence and Security Certifications and Trust Center. 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, July 2026
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose Artrya or Caristo Diagnostics?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Artrya grades higher on Autonomy and Oversight Model, EHR and Interoperability Depth and Commercial Transparency, and Caristo Diagnostics grades higher on several axes, including Model and Technology Transparency, Clinical and Operational Evidence and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Caristo Diagnostics 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 Artrya and Caristo Diagnostics differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Artrya and Caristo Diagnostics is on Commercial Transparency, where Artrya grades A and Caristo Diagnostics grades C. That axis sits in the Commercial group, so it should carry the most weight for a buyer whose binding constraint is contracting, scope and what the price actually covers.
Where do Artrya and Caristo Diagnostics grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Artrya and Caristo Diagnostics the same on several axes, including AI Centrality, Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. 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.
Both are cloud based analyses of routine CCTA and both grade C on setting coverage as single disease vendors. The decisive contrast is what each measures and where it is paid: Caristo's FAI-Score quantifies coronary inflammation, cleared in the UK, EU, and Australia but pending FDA clearance for US clinical use and holding a Category III tracking code without established payment; Artrya's Salix measures plaque volume and is FDA cleared in the established Category I pathway.
Caristo's US cleared product is CaRi-Plaque, which competes with Salix on plaque, not inflammation. ORFAN and CRISP-CT results should be read from the published studies; Artrya's Plaque Dispersion Score has no published validation yet and its SAPPHIRE study has not reported. Neither vendor publishes a licence price, though Artrya discloses its per scan mechanism.