Cleerly vs Elucid (2026)
The two American plaque quantification rivals are benchmarked against each other in the peer reviewed literature, so the buying question is what each grounds its numbers in and how each gets paid. Cleerly is the incumbent with the payment machinery: cleared in 2020, its analysis underpins Category I CPT codes, Medicare contractor coverage, and commercial policies reported to span more than 86 million covered lives, with the multicenter CONFIRM2 registry behind it. Elucid's PlaqueIQ, cleared in October 2024, is distinguished by its ground truth: the networks were trained on carotid endarterectomy histopathology co registered to CTA, classifying plaque against actual tissue rather than Hounsfield unit thresholds, which matters because attenuation values overlap between tissue types like lipid rich necrotic core and intraplaque hemorrhage. Its coverage is real too: four of seven Medicare contractors from late 2024 and United Healthcare alignment from October 2025. Two cautions: Elucid's workflow is not fully autonomous, trained analysts segment the data before the software classifies, and its FFRCT product remains pending clearance and is not available. If your failure mode is coverage breadth today, start with Cleerly. If your failure mode is confidence in what the plaque composition numbers mean, start with Elucid.
- Coverage breadth today: Category I CPT underpinning, multiple Medicare Administrative Contractor determinations, and commercial payer policies reported at more than 86 million covered lives.
- First mover tenure: cleared in 2020, the longest run in this competitive set, with the multicenter international CONFIRM2 registry in the evidence base.
- Benchmarked willingly: Cleerly appears among the eight systems compared head to head in the Nature Reviews Cardiology QCI consensus statement.
- Ground truth is your question: networks trained on carotid endarterectomy histopathology co registered to CTA, marketed as CT Virtual Histology, graded A on this index's model transparency axis.
- Lipid rich necrotic core is what you need called correctly: spatial interpretation across adjacent voxels rather than fixed Hounsfield ranges, targeting exactly the tissue overlap where thresholds fail.
- The platform is extending to stroke: a carotid version launched October 2025 applies the same histology grounded approach to carotid disease, with Medicare contractor and United Healthcare coverage already in place for the coronary product.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Cleerly 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 | Cleerly | Elucid |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Radiology & Imaging AI | Radiology & Imaging AI |
| Founded | 2017 | Not recorded |
| Headquarters | Denver, Colorado, United States | Boston, Massachusetts, United States |
| Website | cleerlyhealth.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 Cleerly its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Set against Elucid, Cleerly grades higher on several axes, including Clinical and Operational Evidence, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. 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 Cleerly, Elucid grades higher on Model and Technology Transparency. 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 Cleerly or Elucid?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Cleerly grades higher on several axes, including Clinical and Operational Evidence, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center, and Elucid grades higher on Model and Technology Transparency. 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 Cleerly and Elucid differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Cleerly and Elucid is on Security Certifications and Trust Center, where Cleerly grades A and Elucid grades C. 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 Cleerly and Elucid grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Cleerly and Elucid the same on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model Supply Chain Disclosure. Neither holds an advantage the index can evidence on those axes, so they should not carry weight in a selection between these two.
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.
Covered lives and coverage figures are vendor published. Elucid's workflow includes trained analysts who segment the data to create the coronary model before the software classifies tissue, so it is not fully autonomous, and its FFRCT product is pending FDA clearance and should not be treated as available. Elucid routes imaging to vendor side processing with analysts involved; buyers under data sovereignty constraints should establish where scans go for either product. The Category I CPT for automated plaque analysis, reported at US$950 per assessment from January 2026, is set by the payer system rather than either vendor.