Etiometry vs Sickbay (2026)
One of these is a risk model platform and the other is what risk models run on, and confusing them is the most common mistake in this category. Sickbay captures and serves high resolution physiologic data from bedside devices, which is the hard engineering problem underneath every deterioration algorithm in the intensive care unit, and it is deliberately vendor neutral so the hospital can change algorithms without changing the plumbing. Etiometry does its own aggregation and then clears four physiologic risk indices on top of it, with the best security disclosure and the deepest interoperability documentation in this category. The decision is architectural rather than clinical. If you expect to run models from several vendors over the next decade, buy the layer and keep it open. If you want cleared indices working next quarter, Etiometry is the shorter path and the more coupled one.
- It is not a risk model, it is the vendor neutral data layer that risk models run on, which makes it a different kind of purchase: infrastructure that outlives any particular algorithm.
- High resolution physiologic data capture is the harder engineering problem in this category, and it is the input every deterioration model in the unit depends on.
- Buying the layer separately means the hospital is not locked into one vendor's model, and can replace the algorithm without replacing the plumbing.
- Four separately cleared physiologic risk indices with population specific indications, which is the deepest regulatory footprint in this category, sitting on top of its own data aggregation.
- The best security disclosure in this category by a wide margin, including SOC 2 Type II with the type specified, alongside the deepest interoperability disclosure in the index.
- The published evidence base is investigator led rather than vendor run, and the company publishes the limits of each index per population rather than asserting general coverage.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Etiometry and Sickbay 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 | Etiometry | Sickbay |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Inpatient Deterioration & Risk Monitoring | Inpatient Deterioration & Risk Monitoring |
| Headquarters | Dedham, Massachusetts | Houston, Texas |
| Website | etiometry.com | sickbay.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 Etiometry its top capability grade on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model and Technology Transparency and Clinical and Operational Evidence. Set against Sickbay, Etiometry grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and 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, August 2026
The AI Health Index records no top capability grade for Sickbay on any axis it scores. Set against Etiometry, Sickbay does not grade higher on any scored axis, though the two are level on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, HIPAA and BAA Posture and 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 Etiometry or Sickbay?
The AI Health Index grades Etiometry higher than Sickbay on every axis that separates them, several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model and Technology Transparency. Sickbay does not grade higher on any scored axis.
Where do Etiometry and Sickbay differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Etiometry and Sickbay is on Clinical and Operational Evidence, where Etiometry grades A and Sickbay 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 Etiometry and Sickbay grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Etiometry and Sickbay the same on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Commercial Transparency. 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.
These records sit at overlapping layers and a hospital may end up with both, so the question to settle first is who owns the physiologic data layer and whether a future model from a different vendor can run on it. Etiometry aggregates data and clears its own indices on top, which is deeper but more coupled; Sickbay is deliberately the layer beneath. Neither publishes pricing or a unit of pricing such as per monitored bed.
Etiometry's HIPAA compliance is asserted without a published business associate posture, and its subgroup performance disclosure is absent, which is the one large unaddressed exposure alongside otherwise strong technical transparency.