Finite State vs Sternum (2026)
Two answers to the same problem, that medical device firmware leans heavily on components the manufacturer did not write, applied at opposite ends of the lifecycle. Finite State finds them: binary analysis unpacks the shipped artifact without source code access, identifies the vulnerable components, and packages the reachability evidence a regulator will accept. Sternum neutralises them: its patented Embedded Integrity Verification blocks any attempt to divert the device's execution flow at runtime, so it stops unknown and zero day exploits without knowing which flaw was used, and it works even when the device is disconnected. The engineering irony this index records is that Sternum's runtime protection, arguably the most elegant approach in the category, contains no machine learning at all and is graded C on AI centrality for it, honestly. If your failure mode is identifying and documenting vulnerable components for the submission, start with Finite State. If your failure mode is protecting deployed devices you cannot easily patch, start with Sternum. Many manufacturers will want both.
- Find the vulnerable component before it ships: binary analysis across a reported 130 plus formats identifies libraries and flaws inside firmware without source code access, graded A on model transparency and A on setting for covering design through postmarket.
- The artifact a reviewer asks for: audit ready VEX documents with defensible not affected justifications, mapping automatically to FDA Section 524B and the EU Cyber Resilience Act, converting an unmanageable CVE list into a documented position.
- Reachability analysis reduces the noise it reports by up to 80 percent by determining whether a vulnerable path can execute, so remediation effort goes where a path is actually exploitable.
- Defend the device after it ships, regardless of which flaw: patented Embedded Integrity Verification blocks any attempt to divert the execution flow, so it stops unknown and zero day exploits without needing to know the vulnerability, graded A on autonomy.
- The deployment position no competitor matches, graded A: protection runs inside the firmware and works when the device is entirely disconnected, at a reported 1 to 3 percent latency overhead, which addresses the isolated and legacy equipment that network tools cannot reach.
- It reduces dependence on field patching, the postmarket obligation that is slow, costly, and sometimes impossible on deployed clinical devices, and it runs across RTOS and embedded Linux including legacy hardware.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Finite State and Sternum 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 | Finite State | Sternum |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Healthcare Cybersecurity | Healthcare Cybersecurity |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2018 |
| Headquarters | Columbus, Ohio, United States | Tel Aviv, Israel |
| Website | finitestate.io | sternumiot.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 Finite State its top capability grade on several axes, including Model and Technology Transparency, Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. Set against Sternum, Finite State grades higher on AI Centrality, FDA and Regulatory Status 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, July 2026
The AI Health Index awards Sternum its top capability grade on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model and Technology Transparency and Model Supply Chain Disclosure. Set against Finite State, Sternum grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, AI Governance and Bias 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, July 2026
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose Finite State or Sternum?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Finite State grades higher on AI Centrality, FDA and Regulatory Status and Setting and Specialty Coverage, and Sternum grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, AI Governance and Bias Disclosure and AI Liability and Recourse. Sternum 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 Finite State and Sternum differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Finite State and Sternum is on AI Centrality, where Finite State grades B and Sternum 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 Finite State and Sternum grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Finite State and Sternum the same on several axes, including Model and Technology Transparency, Model Supply Chain Disclosure and Clinical and Operational Evidence. 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 Healthcare Administrative Automation page.
These two address the manufacturer's obligation at different lifecycle points and are closer to complementary than competing: Finite State identifies and documents vulnerable components before shipment, Sternum neutralises exploitation at runtime after shipment. Both grade A on model transparency and PHI, and neither processes patient data.
The AI centrality grades are both honest downgrades: Finite State B because its depth is program analysis rather than machine learning, Sternum C because its flagship Embedded Integrity Verification is deterministic and the company says so plainly, presenting the determinism as the feature.
That determinism is why Sternum earns A on autonomy where autonomous enforcement is dangerous elsewhere in this category: it verifies whether execution flow was diverted rather than guessing whether behaviour is anomalous, so it carries none of the false positive exposure. Finite State grades C on governance because its reachability calls justify not remediating. Both grade C on evidence with no independent benchmark located. Neither publishes a security attestation or pricing.