Artrya vs Heartflow
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.
Side-by-Side
| Axis | A Artrya |
H Heartflow |
|---|---|---|
| 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 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.