Cleerly vs Nanox.AI (2026)
Two ways to find coronary disease on a computed tomography scan. Cleerly analyses the coronary study a cardiologist ordered, quantifying plaque and stenosis to answer a contested question about who needs invasive testing. Nanox mines scans taken for entirely different reasons, surfacing coronary calcium and vertebral fractures nobody was looking for, with a clearance portfolio built over years and a listed parent whose filings describe the business. The difference is who asked the question. Cleerly answers one a clinician already posed; Nanox raises one nobody did, which is genuine population health and also generates follow up obligations the health system pays for. Price the incidental finding pathway alongside the licence, because the vendor does not carry it.
- Coronary plaque quantification from computed tomography is the product, aimed at a specific and contested clinical decision about who needs invasive testing.
- Depth in one disease with a real evidence base is a different proposition from opportunistic breadth across findings.
- For a cardiology service the analysis answers the question the service already asks every day.
- Its strategy is opportunistic population health, mining scans taken for another reason to find findings nobody was looking for, including vertebral fractures and coronary calcium.
- A deep clearance portfolio built over years across several anatomical findings, which is a harder path than a single authorisation.
- As a subsidiary of a listed parent, its business is described in filed disclosures that private competitors do not produce.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Cleerly and Nanox.AI 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 | Nanox.AI |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Radiology & Imaging AI | Radiology & Imaging AI |
| Founded | 2017 | 2014 |
| Headquarters | Denver, Colorado, United States | Neve Ilan, Israel |
| Website | cleerlyhealth.com | nanox.vision |
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 Nanox.AI, Cleerly grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Model and Technology Transparency and 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
The AI Health Index awards Nanox.AI its top capability grade on FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against Cleerly, Nanox.AI does not grade higher on any scored axis, though the two are level on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship and FDA and Regulatory Status. 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
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose Cleerly or Nanox.AI?
The AI Health Index grades Cleerly higher than Nanox.AI on every axis that separates them, several axes, including AI Centrality, Model and Technology Transparency and Model Supply Chain Disclosure. Nanox.AI does not grade higher on any scored axis.
Where do Cleerly and Nanox.AI differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Cleerly and Nanox.AI is on Clinical and Operational Evidence, where Cleerly grades A and Nanox.AI 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 Cleerly and Nanox.AI grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Cleerly and Nanox.AI the same on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship 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 Cleerly and Nanox.AI not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Cleerly and Nanox.AI 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 Clinical Decision Support page.
Opportunistic detection creates a duty to act whose cost falls on the health system rather than the vendor, since a surfaced finding generates follow up imaging, patient notification and an incidental finding pathway, and that should be priced alongside the licence. Nanox publishes no health privacy commitment, no data governance framework and no subgroup analysis, which is a notable gap for a product designed to run across whole populations. Neither vendor publishes performance stratified by sex, which matters because coronary disease presentation and calcium scoring both differ.