Gleamer vs Milvue (2026)
Both read plain radiographs across trauma and chest, both FDA cleared and assistive, both AI centrality A, so the split is evidence depth and reach against measurement breadth and deployment flexibility. If evidence depth and the broadest deployment record matter most, start with Gleamer, which grades A on clinical evidence across roughly 35 million exams and gives a graded confidence output. If you want detection plus measurements and an explicit on premise deployment, start with Milvue, accepting thinner performance reporting. Gleamer is the widest distributed fracture AI here, embedded across many imaging platforms. Milvue pairs detection with roughly 60 automatic measurements and an unusually precise account of which product is cleared where.
- The deeper evidence base and widest deployment in the fracture group: roughly 30 peer reviewed publications and 35 million exams across more than 2,000 institutions in 45 countries, against Milvue's clearance reader study and single emergency setting paper.
- A graded three tier confidence output, positive, doubt, and negative, that helps a clinician calibrate trust rather than a binary flag.
- The broadest distribution reach, embedded through many imaging platform partners including Fujifilm, so it often arrives inside a workflow already in place.
- Detection plus roughly 60 automatic measurements in one tool, where Gleamer concentrates on detection, plus a pre filled structured report returned in under 30 seconds.
- An explicit on premise deployment option alongside cloud, which Gleamer does not state as plainly and which matters for institutions keeping imaging inside their perimeter.
- Unusually precise regulatory disclosure, naming which product holds which authorization in which market and labeling its reporting module as non device software.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Gleamer and Milvue 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 | Gleamer | Milvue |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Radiology & Imaging AI | Radiology & Imaging AI |
| Founded | 2017 | 2018 |
| Headquarters | Paris, France | Grenoble, France |
| Website | gleamer.ai | milvue.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 Gleamer its top capability grade on AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against Milvue, Gleamer grades higher on Model and Technology Transparency, Clinical and Operational Evidence 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
The AI Health Index awards Milvue its top capability grade on AI Centrality and FDA and Regulatory Status. Set against Gleamer, Milvue grades higher on Deployment Model and Data Residency. 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 Gleamer or Milvue?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Gleamer grades higher on Model and Technology Transparency, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Liability and Recourse, and Milvue grades higher on Deployment Model and Data Residency. Gleamer 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 Gleamer and Milvue differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Gleamer and Milvue is on Model and Technology Transparency, where Gleamer grades B and Milvue 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 Gleamer and Milvue grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Gleamer and Milvue the same on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model 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 Clinical Decision Support page.
Both are FDA cleared plain radiograph detection tools spanning trauma and chest, both assistive, both French vendors selling into the US, and neither publishes pricing, a security attestation, or a business associate commitment. Milvue's performance reporting is the weaker of the two: its aggregate area under the curve above 96 percent is not broken out by pathology, region, or age, and its first place claim is unsubstantiated against a named comparator.
Neither publishes a formal governance program or demographic subgroup analysis. Both distribute partly through third party imaging platforms, which adds parties to the data path and makes residency a per deployment question.