Cadence vs Sword Health (2026)
Two remote care programmes with different buyers and different clinical targets. Cadence runs chronic care management for older adults at home in partnership with health systems, monitoring daily vitals for hypertension, diabetes, heart failure and lung disease, and it publishes the proportion of alerts its supervised agents close without a human, which is a rare checkable disclosure. Sword delivers musculoskeletal and adjacent care to employer and plan populations with motion tracking, at substantial documented scale and with two properly named security credentials. They rarely compete for the same budget. Neither publishes engagement adjusted outcomes, which is the number that would show either programme changed anything rather than selecting for people who were going to engage anyway.
- It runs chronic care management for older adults at home with health systems, billed through an existing reimbursement pathway.
- It publishes the proportion of vitals alerts its supervised agents resolve without a human, with a stated review time, which makes the supervision claim checkable.
- Conditions and population are enumerated precisely, so a buyer can match the programme against its own attributed panel.
- It delivers musculoskeletal and adjacent care to employer and plan populations with motion tracking and real time feedback at documented scale.
- Two genuine security credentials are correctly named with a specific audit result stated, and the oversight structure is described per product.
- For an employer or plan, the contracting path and the population are different from a provider billed programme.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Cadence and Sword Health 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 | Cadence | Sword Health |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Remote Monitoring & Chronic Care | Remote Monitoring & Chronic Care |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2015 |
| Headquarters | New York, New York | Salt Lake City, Utah |
| Website | cadence.care | swordhealth.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 Cadence its top capability grade on Autonomy and Oversight Model and Clinical and Operational Evidence. Set against Sword Health, Cadence grades higher on Clinical and Operational Evidence, 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 Sword Health its top capability grade on Autonomy and Oversight Model and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Set against Cadence, Sword Health grades higher on Security Certifications and Trust Center and AI Liability and Recourse. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on Model Supply Chain 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, August 2026
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose Cadence or Sword Health?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Cadence grades higher on Clinical and Operational Evidence, FDA and Regulatory Status and Commercial Transparency, and Sword Health grades higher on Security Certifications and Trust Center and AI Liability and Recourse. Cadence 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 Cadence and Sword Health differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Cadence and Sword Health is on Security Certifications and Trust Center, where Cadence grades C and Sword Health grades A. 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 Cadence and Sword Health grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Cadence and Sword Health 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.
What have Cadence and Sword Health not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Cadence and Sword Health 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 Remote Monitoring & Chronic Care page.
The buyers differ, one billed through provider reimbursement and the other contracted by employers and plans, so a like for like cost comparison does not exist. Neither publishes engagement adjusted outcomes, which is the figure separating a programme that worked from one that recruited the already motivated.
Cadence publishes no security attestation, retention position or training use statement, and Sword collects data beyond the clinical encounter through hardware in the member's home with no published terms governing that holding.