Artrya vs Heartflow (2026)
This is the category's newest disciplined entrant against its most established platform, and they barely overlap on what they measure. Heartflow computes physiology: FFRCT estimates the functional significance of each lesion, supported by the ACC AHA Chest Pain Guideline, the recognition no competitor holds, on the largest evidence base in this index at more than 600 publications and 400,000 plus patients. Artrya quantifies plaque, fast and transparently: Salix returns a point of care result in under 10 minutes with no external reading teams, and ASX listing forces commercial disclosure down to its own revenue concentration. Two regulatory facts frame the choice. Heartflow's guideline backed FFRCT is unmatched, but its Plaque and RoadMap functions are cleared in only five countries, while Artrya's plaque module is FDA cleared and unrestricted in the US Category I pathway. And Artrya's evidence is a promise, its SAPPHIRE study has not yet reported. If your failure mode is lesion significance in symptomatic patients with the deepest evidence behind it, start with Heartflow. If your failure mode is fast US plaque quantification from a transparent vendor with no processing layer, start with Artrya.
- Point of care self sufficiency: Salix returns an assessment in under 10 minutes with no external reading teams, graded A on autonomy, the honest counterpoint to a vendor side processing model whose human step Heartflow does not quantify.
- Economics 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 transparency against Heartflow's B.
- US plaque, cleared and unrestricted: Salix Coronary Plaque is FDA cleared under K251837 in the established Category I pathway, where Heartflow's own Plaque and RoadMap functions are cleared in only five countries and unavailable across most of the developed world.
- The recognition no one else holds: FFRCT is supported by the ACC AHA Chest Pain Guideline, a materially higher bar than a 510(k), where Artrya's SAPPHIRE study has not yet reported.
- Evidence depth without rival: more than 600 peer reviewed publications and clinical use across 400,000 plus patients, an A on clinical evidence against Artrya's C.
- Physiology, not just plaque: FFRCT estimates the functional significance of each lesion from an acquired CCTA, a different clinical question from plaque quantification, delivered across a four function platform in cleared markets.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Artrya and Heartflow 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 | Heartflow |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Radiology & Imaging AI | Radiology & Imaging AI |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2007 |
| Headquarters | Perth, Western Australia, Australia | Mountain View, California, United States |
| Website | artrya.com | heartflow.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 Heartflow, Artrya grades higher on Autonomy and Oversight Model, AI Governance and Bias Disclosure 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 Heartflow its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Set against Artrya, Heartflow grades higher on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. 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 Heartflow?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Artrya grades higher on Autonomy and Oversight Model, AI Governance and Bias Disclosure and Commercial Transparency, and Heartflow grades higher on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. Heartflow 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 Heartflow differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Artrya and Heartflow is on Clinical and Operational Evidence, where Artrya grades C and Heartflow 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 Heartflow grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Artrya and Heartflow the same on several axes, including AI Centrality, Model and Technology Transparency 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.
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 grade A on AI centrality and on FDA status, but the regulatory strengths differ in kind: Heartflow's A rests on ACC AHA guideline recognition for FFRCT, while its Plaque and RoadMap functions are cleared only in the US, Bahrain, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, not across Europe, the UK, Australia, Canada, or Japan. Artrya's A rests on clean, disciplined module clearances including Salix Coronary Plaque under K251837.
Heartflow's evidence base is the largest in the index and Artrya's flagship SAPPHIRE study has not yet reported, holding it at C on evidence. Heartflow's own dossier candidly describes FFRCT reimbursement as inadequate, a disclosure this index credits. Neither publishes a licence price, though Artrya discloses its per scan mechanism; neither publishes data residency terms.