Biobeat vs Etiometry (2026)
One creates the signal and the other interprets signals already flowing. Biobeat puts wearable continuous monitors on patients who are checked every few hours, with a progressive clearance record for cuffless measurement and the widest setting coverage in this category. Etiometry runs four separately cleared physiologic risk indices over a vendor neutral intensive care data layer, with the best security disclosure in the category and unusually complete implementation detail. On a general ward with sparse observations, Biobeat changes what is knowable. In an intensive care unit already saturated with data, Etiometry interprets it under cleared indications. Ask Biobeat about skin tone, because optical measurement varies with pigmentation and its readings drive automated alerts rather than a number a nurse reads.
- It changes what data exists, putting wearable continuous monitors on patients who are otherwise checked intermittently, with a progressive clearance record for cuffless measurement.
- Setting coverage is the widest in this category, spanning general wards, step down and home monitoring on one platform.
- For a ward where deterioration happens between observations, continuous vitals reach a window periodic checks cannot.
- Four separately cleared physiologic risk indices with population specific indications, sitting on a vendor neutral intensive care data layer.
- The best security disclosure in this category, publishing SOC 2 Type II with the type named.
- It publishes the shape of an actual implementation, including hospital installed servers, which most vendors reserve for the sales process.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Biobeat and Etiometry 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 | Biobeat | Etiometry |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Inpatient Deterioration & Risk Monitoring | Inpatient Deterioration & Risk Monitoring |
| Founded | 2016 | Not recorded |
| Headquarters | Petah Tikva, Israel | Dedham, Massachusetts |
| Website | bio-beat.com | etiometry.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 Biobeat its top capability grade on FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against Etiometry, Biobeat does not grade higher on any scored axis, though the two are level on HIPAA and BAA Posture, FDA and Regulatory Status and Commercial Transparency. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Liability and Recourse. 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, August 2026
The AI Health Index awards Etiometry its top capability grade on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model and Technology Transparency and Clinical and Operational Evidence. Set against Biobeat, Etiometry grades higher 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, August 2026
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose Biobeat or Etiometry?
The AI Health Index grades Etiometry higher than Biobeat on every axis that separates them, several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model and Technology Transparency. Biobeat does not grade higher on any scored axis.
Where do Biobeat and Etiometry differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Biobeat and Etiometry is on Autonomy and Oversight Model, where Biobeat grades C and Etiometry 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 Biobeat and Etiometry grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Biobeat and Etiometry the same on HIPAA and BAA Posture, FDA and Regulatory Status and Commercial Transparency. Neither holds an advantage the index can evidence on those axes, so they should not carry weight in a selection between these two.
What have Biobeat and Etiometry not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Biobeat and Etiometry published thin or absent detail on Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Liability and Recourse. The AI Health Index treats an absent disclosure as a gap in the public record rather than a failure of the product, so these are the axes to get in writing during diligence instead of inferring from the grade.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Inpatient Deterioration & Risk Monitoring page.
The pigmentation problem sits on one side and it matters more because the readings drive automated alerts rather than a display: optical vital sign measurement performs differently across skin tones and Biobeat publishes no subgroup analysis.
Etiometry's indices are physiologic models rather than learned classifiers, a different technical approach that should not be compared on accuracy alone, and they are explicitly adjunctive so a hospital building an automated response on them is outside the cleared indication. Neither publishes pricing per monitored bed.