Artrya vs Circle Cardiovascular Imaging
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.
Side-by-Side
| Axis | A Artrya |
C Circle Cardiovascular Imaging |
|---|---|---|
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| Model and Technology Transparency | ||
| Clinical and Operational Evidence | ||
| AI Safety and PHI Stewardship | ||
| HIPAA and BAA Posture | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
| FDA and Regulatory Status | ||
| AI Governance and Bias Disclosure | ||
| EHR and Interoperability Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Setting and Specialty Coverage |
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.