Digital Diagnostics vs Eko Health (2026)
Two point of care diagnostics that both bypass the specialist, and only one of them bypasses the clinician too. Digital Diagnostics holds the strongest regulatory position in this index: an authorisation for autonomous diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy where the system issues the result and no physician reads the image, backed by the best pivotal evidence design here and with equity built into that design rather than appended to it. Eko puts cardiac detection inside the stethoscope, flagging low ejection fraction, atrial fibrillation and murmurs during an exam the clinician is already doing, with a decade of stacked clearances and a randomised trial behind it. The difference is who is accountable for the result. In one case a primary care clinic gets a diagnosis without a specialist. In the other it gets a reason to order the echocardiogram sooner.
- It is the only United States authorised instance of a diagnosis made without a clinician reading the image, which is the furthest point on this index's autonomy spectrum and the reason the product exists.
- The pivotal evidence design is the strongest in this index, and equity was an input to that design rather than a disclosure added afterwards.
- There is a reimbursement pathway for the workflow rather than a value argument, which matters more than any feature when a primary care clinic is deciding whether to run the test at all.
- A decade of stacked clearances, each tied to a specific stated indication, and the only record on this side of the index with a randomised trial behind it.
- It works inside an exam a clinician is already performing, analysing ECG and heart sound together from a stethoscope rather than requiring a separate imaging step.
- The reimbursement side is disclosed, which is the half of the economics most vendors leave a buyer to discover after purchase.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Digital Diagnostics and Eko Health 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 | Digital Diagnostics | Eko Health |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Diagnostics & Genomics | Diagnostics & Genomics |
| Founded | 2010 | Not recorded |
| Headquarters | Coralville, Iowa, United States | San Francisco, California |
| Website | digitaldiagnostics.com | ekohealth.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 Digital Diagnostics its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Clinical and Operational Evidence. Set against Eko Health, Digital Diagnostics grades higher on AI Centrality, AI Governance and Bias Disclosure and Deployment Model and Data Residency. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on 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, August 2026
The AI Health Index awards Eko Health its top capability grade on Autonomy and Oversight Model, Clinical and Operational Evidence and FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against Digital Diagnostics, Eko Health grades higher on HIPAA and BAA Posture, Security Certifications and Trust Center and Setting and Specialty Coverage. 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 Digital Diagnostics or Eko Health?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Digital Diagnostics grades higher on AI Centrality, AI Governance and Bias Disclosure and Deployment Model and Data Residency, and Eko Health grades higher on HIPAA and BAA Posture, Security Certifications and Trust Center and Setting and Specialty Coverage. Neither leads on the greater share of scored axes, so the decision turns on which constraint is binding rather than on an overall winner.
Where do Digital Diagnostics and Eko Health differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Digital Diagnostics and Eko Health is on AI Governance and Bias Disclosure, where Digital Diagnostics grades A and Eko Health 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 Digital Diagnostics and Eko Health grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Digital Diagnostics and Eko Health 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.
What have Digital Diagnostics and Eko Health not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Digital Diagnostics and Eko Health published thin or absent detail on HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. 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 Diagnostics & Genomics page.
The autonomy difference is the most important thing here and it changes what evidence you should demand. An autonomous diagnosis with no clinician in the loop needs pivotal evidence in the population and setting where it will run, which Digital Diagnostics has; a detection aid presented to a clinician needs to show that clinicians act better with it than without, which is what Eko's trial addresses.
Neither publishes a health privacy statement or business associate terms, and Digital Diagnostics publishes no security attestation of any kind. Eko publishes no subgroup or population performance analysis, which matters because heart sound and ECG characteristics vary with body habitus and sex.