Artrya vs Circle Cardiovascular Imaging (2026)
Two smaller challengers in a lane dominated by deep evidence vendors, and they diverge on the one question the big names answer the same way. Where Heartflow, Cleerly, and Elucid all move imaging out for processing, these two split it: Artrya is cloud based point of care, returning a plaque assessment in under 10 minutes with no external reading teams, while Circle's cvi42 Plaque runs fully on premise so scans never leave the institution at all. Artrya is the more transparent algorithm company, ASX listing forces disclosure down to its own revenue concentration, and it grades A on AI centrality where Circle grades B as a reading platform with a plaque module bolted on. Circle is the stronger data control and interoperability story, fully on premise and scanner agnostic by heritage. Neither has reported outcome evidence yet, so both sit at C there. If your failure mode is imaging that cannot leave the enterprise or an existing cvi42 install, start with Circle. If your failure mode is fast point of care plaque from a transparent vendor with a resolved US payment path, start with Artrya.
- Point of care speed with no layer: Salix returns an assessment in under 10 minutes with no external reading teams, graded A on autonomy, where Circle's on premise model keeps data in but its human oversight boundary is not explicitly stated.
- Economics fully in the open: ASX listing forces Artrya to publish its fee per scan basis, the US$950 Category I rate from January 2026, and its own 70 percent plaque revenue concentration, graded A on commercial transparency against Circle's B.
- AI is the whole product: Salix is a plaque analysis algorithm graded A on AI centrality, where Circle's franchise is the cvi42 reading platform and the plaque model is a module on it, graded B on the platform not algorithm principle.
- Imaging never leaves the institution: cvi42 Plaque runs fully on premise, graded A on PHI stewardship and deployment, where Artrya is cloud only and patient imaging necessarily leaves the enterprise with no data residency terms published.
- Scanner agnostic by heritage: cvi42 is a multi vendor cardiovascular reading platform compatible with all major systems, graded A on interoperability against Artrya's B, whose interoperability rests on internal platform coherence rather than documented third party interfaces.
- A broader imaging franchise: cvi42 spans cardiac MRI and CT reading with an established install base, where Artrya is a small footprint of named US hospital systems plus Australian operations.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Artrya and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging 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 | Circle Cardiovascular Imaging |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Radiology & Imaging AI | Radiology & Imaging AI |
| Headquarters | Perth, Western Australia, Australia | Calgary, Alberta, Canada |
| Website | artrya.com | circlecvi.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 Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Artrya grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model and Technology 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 Circle Cardiovascular Imaging its top capability grade on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship and FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against Artrya, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging grades higher on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship and HIPAA and BAA Posture. 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, July 2026
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose Artrya or Circle Cardiovascular Imaging?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Artrya grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model and Technology Transparency, and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging grades higher on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship and HIPAA and BAA Posture. Circle Cardiovascular Imaging 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 Circle Cardiovascular Imaging differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Artrya and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging is on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, where Artrya grades C and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging grades A. 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 Artrya and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Artrya and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging the same on several axes, including Clinical and Operational Evidence, Security Certifications and Trust Center and FDA and Regulatory Status. 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 Artrya and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Artrya and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging 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 Clinical Decision Support page.
This is the lane's cloud against on premise contrast in miniature, with a twist: both are relatively small challengers to the big evidence vendors, and neither has a reported outcome study, Artrya's SAPPHIRE has not yet reported and no validation study specific to cvi42 Plaque was located, so both grade C on clinical evidence.
Artrya grades A on AI centrality, autonomy, and commercial transparency; Circle grades A on PHI stewardship, deployment, and interoperability but B on AI centrality as a platform with a plaque module. The decisive split is architecture and data control: Artrya is cloud only with no residency terms published, Circle is fully on premise and resolves residency structurally. Artrya publishes its per scan pricing mechanism; Circle publishes no licence price. Both describe the Category III to Category I reimbursement transition accurately.