Circle Cardiovascular Imaging vs Elucid (2026)
The sharpest architectural contrast in the lane sits in this pair. Elucid sends imaging out: trained analysts segment the CTA data before PlaqueIQ classifies plaque against carotid endarterectomy histopathology, a histology grounded method that earns an A on model transparency and comes with resolved US reimbursement. Circle keeps imaging in: cvi42 Plaque runs fully on premise, so scans never leave the institution, and a Johns Hopkins user describes immediate interactive control over the analysis rather than waiting on a report from a service. What separates them beyond architecture is evidence and disclosure, Elucid publishes its mechanism and holds FDA clearance with Medicare contractor coverage, while no validation study specific to cvi42 Plaque was located and Circle publishes no accuracy methodology, holding it at C on both evidence and transparency. If your failure mode is imaging that cannot leave the enterprise, or you already run cvi42, start with Circle. If your failure mode is validated, histology grounded plaque composition with resolved coverage, start with Elucid, noting its analyst step means it is not fully autonomous.
- The strongest data residency position in the lane: cvi42 Plaque runs fully on premise, so imaging never leaves the institution, graded A on PHI stewardship and deployment, where Elucid routes scans to vendor side processing whose analyst step is disclosed but unquantified.
- Scanner agnostic by heritage: cvi42 is a multi vendor cardiovascular reading platform compatible with all major systems, graded A on interoperability, a franchise spanning cardiac MRI and CT rather than a coronary only tool.
- Direct clinician control: a Johns Hopkins user describes immediate and interactive control over the analysis, the counterpoint to receiving a finished report from a send out service.
- Ground truth against tissue: PlaqueIQ's networks were trained on carotid endarterectomy histopathology co registered to CTA, graded A on model transparency, where Circle publishes no accuracy figures or validation methodology and grades C.
- Resolved US reimbursement: four of seven Medicare contractors extended coverage from November 2024 and United Healthcare aligned from October 2025, on an FDA cleared product graded A on regulatory status against Circle's single module B.
- AI is the whole product: Elucid sells the algorithmic reading itself and grades A on AI centrality, where Circle's plaque model is a module on a reading platform, 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 Elucid 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 | Elucid |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Radiology & Imaging AI | Radiology & Imaging AI |
| Headquarters | Calgary, Alberta, Canada | Boston, Massachusetts, United States |
| Website | circlecvi.com | elucid.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 Elucid, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging grades higher on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship and HIPAA and BAA Posture. 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 Elucid its top capability grade on AI Centrality, Model and Technology Transparency and FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Elucid 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 Elucid?
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 HIPAA and BAA Posture, and Elucid grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Model and Technology Transparency and Clinical and Operational Evidence. Circle Cardiovascular Imaging 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 Elucid differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Circle Cardiovascular Imaging and Elucid is on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, where Circle Cardiovascular Imaging grades A and Elucid 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 Elucid grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Circle Cardiovascular Imaging and Elucid the same on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Security Certifications and Trust Center 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 Elucid not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Circle Cardiovascular Imaging and Elucid 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 by vendor type and by disclosure. Elucid is an AI plaque company graded A on AI centrality, model transparency, and regulatory status, with the caveats that trained analysts segment the data before classification so it is not fully autonomous, and its FFRCT product is pending clearance and not available.
Circle is an established reading platform with a cleared plaque module, graded B on AI centrality and C on both clinical evidence, since no validation study specific to cvi42 Plaque was located, and model transparency, since no accuracy or methodology was published. Circle's decisive strength is architectural: A on PHI stewardship, deployment, and interoperability for fully on premise, scanner agnostic analysis.
The contrast is sharp, Elucid moves imaging out to analysts, Circle keeps it inside the institution. Neither publishes a licence price; Circle's on premise model resolves data residency structurally where Elucid's terms are undisclosed.