AZmed vs Gleamer (2026)
These are the two closest matched fracture detection tools in the index, both AI centrality A, both FDA cleared for adult and pediatric fracture detection, both grading A on clinical evidence, both assistive, so the tiebreakers are the character of the validation and how the output is delivered. If independent, multi country validation matters most, start with AZmed, whose evidence is externally generated at unusual scale. If distribution reach and a graded confidence output that helps you calibrate trust matter more, start with Gleamer, the widest deployed fracture AI here. AZmed's clearances rested on named external studies and a 258,373 X-ray analysis across 26 countries. Gleamer runs across roughly 35 million exams at more than 2,000 institutions. Both keep the radiologist making the call.
- Externally generated validation at scale: both fracture clearances rested on named institutional studies at University Hospitals Cleveland and SimonMed, and a 2026 study spanned 258,373 X-rays across 100 centers in 26 countries, the broadest generalization test in the fracture group.
- Honest performance reporting: it publishes the specificity figure that barely moved, 0.826 to 0.831, alongside the sensitivity that moved a lot, 0.865 to 0.955, rather than only the flattering number.
- The broadest single clearance trauma scope claim: AZtrauma is stated to be the only FDA cleared US solution covering fractures, joint effusions, and dislocations together.
- The widest deployment and distribution in the fracture group: roughly 35 million exams across more than 2,000 institutions in 45 countries, embedded through many imaging platform partners including Fujifilm, so it often arrives inside a workflow already in place.
- A graded confidence output rather than a binary flag: positive with a solid box above 90 percent confidence, doubt with a dotted box between 50 and 90, which helps a clinician calibrate how much to trust each mark.
- Broad, clearly bounded anatomical coverage across the appendicular skeleton, rib cage, and thoracolumbar spine, cleared for both adults and children.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. AZmed and Gleamer 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 | AZmed | Gleamer |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Radiology & Imaging AI | Radiology & Imaging AI |
| Founded | 2018 | 2017 |
| Headquarters | Paris, France | Paris, France |
| Website | azmed.co | gleamer.ai |
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 AZmed its top capability grade on AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against Gleamer, AZmed grades higher on AI Governance and Bias Disclosure. 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 Gleamer its top capability grade on AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against AZmed, Gleamer does not grade higher on any scored axis, though the two are level on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model and Technology 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
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose AZmed or Gleamer?
The AI Health Index grades AZmed higher than Gleamer on every axis that separates them, AI Governance and Bias Disclosure. Gleamer does not grade higher on any scored axis.
Where do AZmed and Gleamer differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between AZmed and Gleamer is on AI Governance and Bias Disclosure, where AZmed grades B and Gleamer grades C. That axis sits in the Regulatory and Compliance group, so it should carry the most weight for a buyer whose binding constraint is where regulatory exposure sits and who carries it.
Where do AZmed and Gleamer grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades AZmed and Gleamer the same on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model and Technology Transparency. 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.
These are the two closest matched fracture tools in the index, both keeping the radiologist making the call, and neither publishes pricing, a security attestation, or a data residency commitment. Both are French vendors selling into US radiology, so a buyer should establish business associate terms and confirm processing location.
Neither publishes a formal governance program; AZmed edges ahead only because its published validation spans more sites and countries, earning it a higher governance grade. Both also carry a chest module, so a buyer standardizing on one for trauma should confirm the specific chest indications cleared rather than assume parity. Neither publishes model architecture or a third party head to head benchmark against the other.