Artrya vs Cleerly
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.
Side-by-Side
| Axis | A Artrya |
C Cleerly |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
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.