Caris Life Sciences vs Tempus (2026)
The two listed precision oncology companies most cancer programmes end up comparing, and they are indexed here for different halves of what they sell. Caris is graded on the profiling itself, with an approved assay running simultaneous whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing, published clinical and analytical validation, and signatures that disclose their training cohorts. Tempus is graded on the provider software: decision support that flags patients drifting off guideline care, physician tooling, and a health privacy disclosure that is the fuller of the two, documenting both its laboratory role and its software role. It grades C on AI Safety and PHI Stewardship anyway, against Caris at B, because the axis scores the practice rather than the paperwork. If the decision is which molecular profile to order, that is a Caris question. If it is which platform sits in the oncologist's workflow between tests, that is a Tempus question. Both should be read knowing the same company runs the laboratory and reports the performance.
- The regulatory distinction is documented rather than blurred: an approved assay performing simultaneous whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing sits on a different footing from laboratory developed testing, and the company separates the two.
- Clinical and analytical validation of the approved assay is published, and the artificial intelligence signatures disclose their training cohorts and sizes rather than being described as proprietary.
- Scope is bounded precisely to solid tumour molecular profiling across adult and paediatric patients, which is a clearer statement of intended use than most of this category offers.
- The health privacy disclosure is the fuller of the two, because the company occupies both sides of the relationship, laboratory and software vendor, and documents each. Read the disclosure rather than its length: it grades C on AI Safety and PHI Stewardship against Caris at B, because what it documents includes permission to use de identified data for any lawful purpose.
- The provider software is the indexed product rather than the laboratory, so a health system is buying decision support and physician tooling rather than only a test result.
- Its stewardship disclosure is unusually full, publishing what it does with data rather than asserting compliance and stopping there.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Caris Life Sciences and Tempus 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 | Caris Life Sciences | Tempus |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Diagnostics & Genomics | Clinical Decision Support |
| Headquarters | Irving, Texas | Chicago, Illinois |
| Website | carislifesciences.com | tempus.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.
The AI Health Index grades Caris Life Sciences A on Clinical and Operational Evidence, A on FDA and Regulatory Status and A on Setting and Specialty Coverage, which is an unusually strong regulatory and evidence profile for precision oncology and reflects an approved assay whose clinical and analytical validation is published rather than described. It grades A on HIPAA and BAA Posture and B on AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. The offsetting grades are C on Model and Technology Transparency, C on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, C on Autonomy and Oversight Model, C on AI Governance and Bias Disclosure and C on Commercial Transparency. Read together, the AI Health Index record says Caris publishes strongly about the test and thinly about the software that interprets it, and publishes no subgroup performance analysis in a field where variant interpretation depends on the ancestral composition of the training cohorts.
Source: AI Health Index, August 2026
The AI Health Index grades Tempus A on AI Centrality and A on HIPAA and BAA Posture, B on Clinical and Operational Evidence, B on FDA and Regulatory Status, B on EHR and Interoperability Depth, B on Autonomy and Oversight Model, B on Setting and Specialty Coverage and B on Commercial Transparency, which is the strongest commercial disclosure of the pair. It grades C on AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, C on Security Certifications and Trust Center, C on Model and Technology Transparency, C on Model Supply Chain Disclosure and C on AI Governance and Bias Disclosure, and D on AI Liability and Recourse, the lowest grade either company carries on any axis. The AI Health Index reading is that Tempus is graded as a provider software company with real workflow reach and a documented commercial posture, carrying the recourse gap that almost the entire index carries.
Source: AI Health Index, August 2026
Questions buyers ask
Caris Life Sciences vs Tempus: which should a cancer programme choose?
It depends on which half of precision oncology is being bought, and the AI Health Index grades the two companies on different halves. Caris Life Sciences is graded on the molecular profiling itself and earns the index top grade on clinical and operational evidence, on regulatory status and on setting and specialty coverage. Tempus is graded on the provider software that sits in the oncologist workflow between tests, and earns the top grade on AI centrality and on HIPAA and BAA posture with the stronger commercial transparency grade of the pair.
If the decision is which molecular profile to order, that is a Caris question. If the decision is which platform carries decision support and physician tooling between tests, that is a Tempus question. The AI Health Index recommends holding one structural fact while reading either: both companies operate their own clinical laboratories and sell software built on the data those laboratories generate, so the same organisation orders the analysis, produces the result and reports the performance.
Which of Caris and Tempus has better published evidence?
Caris Life Sciences, on the AI Health Index grading. Caris earns an A on Clinical and Operational Evidence because the clinical and analytical validation of its approved assay is published, and its artificial intelligence signatures disclose their training cohorts and cohort sizes rather than being described as proprietary. Tempus earns a B on the same axis.
The AI Health Index grades this axis on what an outsider can retrieve and check rather than on the strength of the underlying science, so the gap records a difference in publication practice. The caveat that applies to both is that neither company publishes a bias evaluation or subgroup performance analysis, and both grade C on AI Governance and Bias Disclosure.
Do Caris or Tempus publish pricing?
Neither publishes rates for the software components, and the test side is reimbursed rather than listed, so a buyer cannot establish a cost before a sales engagement with either. The AI Health Index grades Tempus B on Commercial Transparency and Caris C, so Tempus publishes more of a basis than Caris does without either reaching the top grade.
That places both companies inside the market norm the AI Health Index records across the whole index, where the substantial majority of graded vendors require a sales conversation before pricing can be established.
Are Caris and Tempus regulated as medical devices?
Partly, and the distinction is the thing to get right. The AI Health Index grades Caris Life Sciences A on FDA and Regulatory Status because the company separates its approved assay, which performs simultaneous whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing, from laboratory developed testing rather than blurring the two.
Tempus grades B. In neither case does regulatory standing extend automatically to every algorithm the company ships, which is why the AI Health Index grades regulatory status and clinical evidence on separate axes. A cleared or approved product is not the same as a product with published evidence, and neither is the same as a product with published recourse when it is wrong.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Diagnostics & Genomics page.
Both companies operate their own clinical laboratories and sell software built on the data those laboratories generate, which is the structural fact to hold while reading any of their evidence: the same organisation orders the analysis, produces the result and reports the performance.
Neither publishes a security attestation or a trust centre, and neither publishes a bias evaluation or subgroup performance analysis, which matters in precision oncology because variant interpretation and signature performance both depend on the ancestral composition of the training cohorts. Neither publishes pricing for the software components, and the test side is reimbursed rather than listed.