CLEW Medical vs Etiometry (2026)
Two regulated approaches to critical care risk, and between them they hold the best transparency in this category. CLEW publishes the operating characteristics of its cleared models in a public regulatory document, which means a buyer can read the sensitivity and specificity rather than take them on trust, and it produced the first published measurement of whether clinicians acted on the predictions at all. Etiometry runs four separately cleared physiologic risk indices over a vendor neutral intensive care data layer, publishes SOC 2 Type II with the type named, and describes the implementation shape down to the servers. The technical approaches differ enough that accuracy comparison is misleading: one is machine learning classification, the other is physiologic modelling. Both are explicitly adjunctive, so neither supports an automated response pathway without stepping outside its clearance.
- It publishes the actual operating characteristics of its models in a public regulatory document, which almost nothing else in this category does, so sensitivity and specificity are readable rather than asserted.
- The cleared indications carry an explicit adjunctive constraint stating predictions are for reference only, which bounds what the hospital may build on top of them.
- It produced the first direct measurement of this category's defining failure mode, comparing model output against what clinicians actually did, published in a peer reviewed journal.
- Four separately cleared physiologic risk indices with population specific indications, which is the deepest regulatory footprint in this category, plus a vendor neutral data layer underneath them.
- The best security disclosure in the category by a wide margin, publishing SOC 2 Type II with the type named, against a competitor with no located attestation.
- It publishes the shape of an actual implementation, including hospital installed virtual servers, which is information most vendors reserve for the sales process.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. CLEW Medical and Etiometry 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 | CLEW Medical | Etiometry |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Inpatient Deterioration & Risk Monitoring | Inpatient Deterioration & Risk Monitoring |
| Headquarters | Netanya, Israel | Dedham, Massachusetts |
| Website | clewmed.com | etiometry.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 CLEW Medical its top capability grade on AI Centrality and FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against Etiometry, CLEW Medical grades higher on AI Centrality. 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 Etiometry its top capability grade on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model and Technology Transparency and Clinical and Operational Evidence. Set against CLEW Medical, Etiometry grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, 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, August 2026
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose CLEW Medical or Etiometry?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, CLEW Medical grades higher on AI Centrality, and Etiometry grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model and Technology Transparency and Clinical and Operational Evidence. Etiometry 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 CLEW Medical and Etiometry differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between CLEW Medical and Etiometry is on Security Certifications and Trust Center, where CLEW Medical grades C and Etiometry grades A. 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 CLEW Medical and Etiometry grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades CLEW Medical and Etiometry the same on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, AI Safety and PHI Stewardship and HIPAA and BAA Posture. 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 Inpatient Deterioration & Risk Monitoring page.
Both products are regulated devices and both are explicitly adjunctive, meaning neither may be used as the sole basis for a therapeutic decision, and a hospital building an automated response pathway on top of either is operating outside the cleared indication. Etiometry's models are physiologic rather than learned classifiers, which is a different technical approach from the machine learning models that dominate this category and should not be compared on accuracy alone. CLEW publishes no security attestation, trust centre or business associate posture, and neither vendor publishes pricing or a unit of pricing such as per monitored bed.