CLEW Medical vs Luminare (2026)
Two vendors who both think this category is measuring the wrong thing, for different reasons. CLEW measured it directly, publishing the operating characteristics of its cleared models in a public regulatory document and then producing the first study comparing model output against what clinicians actually did, which is the failure everyone else assumes away. Luminare argues the prediction was never the problem: hospitals already know which patients are at risk and fail at the bundle and the workflow that follow, and it publishes the best commercial disclosure and implementation ladder in the category. If your screening score is already firing into a ward that ignores it, Luminare is aimed at your real failure and is the less evidenced of the two. CLEW is the regulated instrument with published numbers behind it.
- It publishes the operating characteristics of its cleared models in a public regulatory document, 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 a hospital may build on them.
- It produced the first direct measurement of this category's defining failure, comparing model output against what clinicians actually did, published in a peer reviewed journal.
- Its founding argument is that prediction was never the constraint, and it builds around intervention, bundle completion and workflow instead, which is where screening programmes actually fail.
- The commercial disclosure is the best in this category and it publishes a genuine implementation ladder with timelines, which almost nothing else here does.
- The mechanism is described plainly enough that you can tell exactly what the product does, which places it at the transparent end of a category full of proprietary scores.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. CLEW Medical and Luminare 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 | Luminare |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Inpatient Deterioration & Risk Monitoring | Inpatient Deterioration & Risk Monitoring |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2014 |
| Headquarters | Netanya, Israel | Houston, Texas |
| Website | clewmed.com | luminare.io |
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 Luminare, CLEW Medical grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. 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 records no top capability grade for Luminare on any axis it scores. Set against CLEW Medical, Luminare grades higher on Commercial 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, August 2026
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose CLEW Medical or Luminare?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, CLEW Medical grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, and Luminare grades higher on Commercial Transparency. CLEW Medical 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 Luminare differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between CLEW Medical and Luminare is on AI Centrality, where CLEW Medical grades A and Luminare 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 CLEW Medical and Luminare grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades CLEW Medical and Luminare the same on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model and Technology Transparency 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 Inpatient Deterioration & Risk Monitoring page.
The two are not equivalent objects: one is a cleared device with published operating characteristics and an adjunctive constraint, the other is not cleared and states it operates without clearance on the basis of the claims it makes. Luminare's central argument is supported by a review article its own chief executive co authored, which is a stated position rather than independent evidence, and no controlled outcome evaluation of the product itself was located. Neither publishes subgroup performance or calibration analysis. Neither publishes an alert burden figure per patient day, which determines whether either survives contact with a working ward.