Cadence vs Verily (2026)
Two supervised agent models for chronic care, sold to different buyers. Cadence partners with health systems and runs chronic care management for older adults at home, monitoring daily vitals for hypertension, diabetes, heart failure and lung disease, and it publishes the disclosure this category almost never offers: the proportion of vitals alerts its agents resolve without a human, with a stated review time beside it. Verily sells to health plans, employers and pharmacy benefit managers, with agents triaging and escalating members to a clinical team, a credible certification set and a health privacy structure better designed than most consumer facing arrangements in this index. The split is contractual rather than technical. If the buyer is a provider organisation billing chronic care management, Cadence. If it is a plan or employer managing a metabolic population, Verily.
- It publishes the number this category never publishes: 55 percent of vitals alerts resolved autonomously, alongside a stated review time, which turns a supervised agent claim into something a buyer can audit.
- The peer reviewed publication record is real and cited on the vendor's own site across recognised journals, which is rare for a chronic care management service.
- The population and conditions are enumerated rather than described: older adults at home with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
- The escalation design is the product rather than a fallback, with agents triaging and escalating members to a clinical team, and the commitments are published in language a member can actually read.
- The health privacy structure is materially better designed than the patient directed arrangements this index records elsewhere, and the certification set is credible with a dedicated trust page.
- Retrieval breadth is real and honestly bounded, with the affiliated clinical entity gathering records with member consent and the limits of that stated rather than glossed.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Cadence and Verily 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 | Verily |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Remote Monitoring & Chronic Care | Remote Monitoring & Chronic Care |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2015 |
| Headquarters | New York, New York | South San Francisco, California |
| Website | cadence.care | verily.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 Verily, Cadence grades higher on Clinical and Operational Evidence. 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 Verily its top capability grade on Autonomy and Oversight Model. Set against Cadence, Verily grades higher on several axes, including AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. 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 Verily?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Cadence grades higher on Clinical and Operational Evidence, and Verily grades higher on several axes, including AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Verily 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 Verily differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Cadence and Verily is on Clinical and Operational Evidence, where Cadence grades A and Verily grades C. 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 Cadence and Verily grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Cadence and Verily 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 Verily not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Cadence and Verily 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.
Both wrap software around a clinical service, so a buyer is purchasing labour as well as models and should price it that way. Cadence publishes no security attestation, trust centre, retention position, training use statement or hosting detail, and its deep record system integration is claimed without a marketplace listing or integration documentation. Verily names its products and agents but not the technology beneath them, and publishes no governance framework or model documentation.
Neither publishes subgroup performance, which matters in remote monitoring because device adherence and connectivity vary sharply with income, age and housing, and a patient whose readings stop arriving looks identical to a patient who is well.