Circle Cardiovascular Imaging vs Cleerly (2026)
This pairing turns on a single architectural fact and a single evidence fact. The architecture: Circle's cvi42 Plaque runs fully on premise, so imaging never leaves the institution, the clearest data residency position in the lane and effectively the only option for buyers under data sovereignty constraints, where Cleerly is a cloud analysis service that sends scans out. The evidence: Cleerly holds an A on clinical evidence with the CREDENCE, PACIFIC, and CONFIRM2 registries and broad Category I reimbursement across a reported 86 million plus covered lives, while no validation study specific to cvi42 Plaque was located, holding Circle at C. The vendors are also different species, Cleerly is an AI plaque company graded A on AI centrality, Circle is an established multi vendor reading platform with a cleared plaque module graded B. If your failure mode is imaging that cannot leave the enterprise, or you already run cvi42, start with Circle. If your failure mode is a proven, broadly reimbursed plaque analysis, start with Cleerly, and establish where your scans are processed.
- The strongest data residency position in the lane: cvi42 Plaque runs fully on premise, so imaging never leaves the institution, graded A on both PHI stewardship and deployment against Cleerly's cloud analysis service, which grades C on deployment.
- Scanner agnostic by heritage: cvi42 is a multi vendor cardiovascular reading platform compatible with all major systems, graded A on interoperability, where Cleerly's specific connectors are not enumerated and it grades C.
- A broader imaging franchise: cvi42 spans cardiac MRI and CT reading rather than a coronary only point solution, with use extending to specialised settings including adult congenital heart disease at Johns Hopkins.
- Coverage breadth today: Cleerly's technology underpins Category I CPT codes, multiple Medicare Administrative Contractor determinations, and commercial payer policies reported at more than 86 million covered lives, an A on regulatory status against Circle's clean but single module B.
- Outcome oriented evidence: the multicenter CREDENCE, PACIFIC, and CONFIRM2 registries, an A on clinical evidence, where no validation study specific to cvi42 Plaque was located and Circle grades C.
- AI is the whole product: Cleerly sells the algorithmic reading itself and grades A on AI centrality, where Circle's franchise is the reading platform and the plaque model is a module on it, graded B on the platform not algorithm principle.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Circle Cardiovascular Imaging and Cleerly 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 | Circle Cardiovascular Imaging | Cleerly |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Radiology & Imaging AI | Radiology & Imaging AI |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2017 |
| Headquarters | Calgary, Alberta, Canada | Denver, Colorado, United States |
| Website | circlecvi.com | cleerlyhealth.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 Circle Cardiovascular Imaging its top capability grade on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship and FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against Cleerly, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging grades higher on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship and EHR and Interoperability Depth. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on 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, July 2026
The AI Health Index awards Cleerly its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Set against Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Cleerly grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Model and Technology Transparency and Clinical and Operational Evidence. 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 Circle Cardiovascular Imaging or Cleerly?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging grades higher on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship and EHR and Interoperability Depth, and Cleerly grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Model and Technology Transparency and Clinical and Operational Evidence. Cleerly 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 Circle Cardiovascular Imaging and Cleerly differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Circle Cardiovascular Imaging and Cleerly is on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, where Circle Cardiovascular Imaging grades A and Cleerly 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 Circle Cardiovascular Imaging and Cleerly grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Circle Cardiovascular Imaging and Cleerly the same on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, HIPAA and BAA Posture and FDA and Regulatory Status. 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 Circle Cardiovascular Imaging and Cleerly not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Circle Cardiovascular Imaging and Cleerly published thin or absent detail on 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 Clinical Decision Support page.
The grades split cleanly by what each vendor is. Cleerly is an AI plaque analysis company, A on AI centrality and clinical evidence, delivered as a cloud service that grades C on deployment. Circle is an established reading platform with a cleared plaque module, so it grades B on AI centrality under this index's platform not algorithm precedent, and C on clinical evidence because no validation study specific to cvi42 Plaque was located, category level endorsement not being product level evidence.
Circle's countervailing strength is architectural: A on PHI stewardship and deployment for fully on premise analysis, and A on interoperability for multi vendor compatibility. The Category III to Category I transition both vendors describe is set by the payer system. Neither publishes a licence price or, in Cleerly's case, data residency terms; Circle's on premise model resolves residency structurally.