Artrya vs Cleerly (2026)
Both quantify coronary plaque from CCTA with AI as the whole product, so this splits on maturity against architecture. Cleerly is the incumbent with the payment machinery and the evidence: cleared since 2020, its analysis underpins Category I CPT codes and commercial policies reported to span more than 86 million covered lives, backed by the multicenter CREDENCE, PACIFIC, and CONFIRM2 registries, an A on both regulatory status and clinical evidence. Artrya is the newer, more transparent challenger: Salix returns a point of care result in under 10 minutes with no external reading teams, and ASX listing forces disclosure that reaches all the way to naming plaque as roughly 70 percent of its own revenue, earning A grades on autonomy and commercial transparency that Cleerly does not hold. What Artrya lacks is reported evidence, its flagship SAPPHIRE study is announced but not yet published, holding it at C where Cleerly is A. If your failure mode is coverage breadth and an outcome evidence base today, start with Cleerly. If your failure mode is point of care speed, a transparent vendor, and legible economics, start with Artrya, and revisit its evidence once SAPPHIRE reports.
- Point of care speed with the layer removed: Salix returns an assessment in under 10 minutes with no external reading teams, graded A on autonomy, where Cleerly is delivered as a cloud analysis service returning a physician report.
- Commercial legibility without rival: 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 revenue concentration in plaque, graded A on transparency against Cleerly's B.
- Mechanistic disclosure: the plaque volume computation is described concretely as voxels within target Hounsfield Unit ranges between lumen and outer wall, with training data provenance stated across the US, Australia, and Canada.
- Coverage breadth today: Cleerly's technology underpins Category I CPT codes, multiple Medicare Administrative Contractor determinations, and commercial payer policies reported at more than 86 million covered lives, graded A on regulatory status against Artrya's clean but far newer clearances.
- Outcome oriented evidence, not a pending study: the multicenter CREDENCE, PACIFIC, and international CONFIRM2 registries against Artrya's SAPPHIRE, which is announced but has not yet reported, an A on clinical evidence against Artrya's C.
- A validated ischemia estimate too: Cleerly ISCHEMIA derives a machine learning estimate of vessel level ischemia from the same scan, cleared under K231335, extending beyond plaque quantification alone.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Artrya and Cleerly 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 | Cleerly |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Radiology & Imaging AI | Radiology & Imaging AI |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2017 |
| Headquarters | Perth, Western Australia, Australia | Denver, Colorado, United States |
| Website | artrya.com | cleerlyhealth.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 Cleerly, Artrya grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, EHR and Interoperability Depth and Deployment Model and Data Residency. 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 Cleerly its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Set against Artrya, Cleerly grades higher on several axes, including Clinical and Operational Evidence, HIPAA and BAA Posture 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 Cleerly?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Artrya grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, EHR and Interoperability Depth and Deployment Model and Data Residency, and Cleerly grades higher on several axes, including Clinical and Operational Evidence, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Cleerly 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 Cleerly differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Artrya and Cleerly is on Clinical and Operational Evidence, where Artrya grades C and Cleerly 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 Cleerly grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Artrya and Cleerly the same on several axes, including AI Centrality, Model and Technology Transparency and Model Supply Chain Disclosure. 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 AI plaque analysis vendors graded A on AI centrality. The grades split on maturity: Cleerly holds A on both regulatory status and clinical evidence on the strength of Category I reimbursement across a reported 86 million plus covered lives and the CONFIRM2 registry, where Artrya's Salix carries clean but recent clearances and its flagship SAPPHIRE study has not yet reported, holding it at C on evidence.
Artrya's countervailing strengths are structural: A on autonomy for having no external reading teams, and A on commercial transparency for ASX forced disclosure including its own concentration risk. Cleerly's per study price is not published though its reimbursement pathway is; Artrya publishes its per scan mechanism. Neither vendor's data residency terms are published.