Infermedica vs Ubie (2026)
The two symptom triage products most often named in the same conversation, and only one of them is regulated for the job. Infermedica is certified as a Class IIb medical device in Europe, guiding a patient from an undifferentiated symptom to a level of care over a physician curated knowledge base, and it embeds inside other organisations' products. Ubie is free and unregistered, covering more than a thousand diseases through an adaptive questionnaire built on published literature under physician supervision, with an unusually strong evidence posture for a consumer tool. For a patient at home, either is a reasonable place to start. For an organisation putting triage into a care pathway, the certification is not a formality: telling someone how urgently to seek care is a regulated act, and inheriting that obligation without the device behind it is the risk.
- It is certified as a Class IIb medical device in Europe and registered with the relevant regulator, which is the correct and much higher bar for software that tells a patient how urgently to seek care.
- Three routes to inspection exist where most vendors offer none, including a published architecture description over a physician curated knowledge base covering around a thousand conditions.
- It is interface first, so a health system or insurer can embed triage inside its own product rather than sending patients to someone else's.
- It is free with no registration, so an organisation can point patients at it without procuring anything and a patient can use it without an account.
- Coverage spans more than a thousand diseases through an adaptive questionnaire built on published literature under physician supervision, with a strong evidence posture for a consumer product.
- It publishes its clinical data sources and process rather than describing them, which is rare at the consumer end of this category.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Infermedica and Ubie 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 | Infermedica | Ubie |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Clinical Decision Support | Clinical Decision Support |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2017 |
| Headquarters | Not recorded | Tokyo, Japan |
| Website | infermedica.com | ubiehealth.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 Infermedica its top capability grade on Security Certifications and Trust Center and Setting and Specialty Coverage. Set against Ubie, Infermedica grades higher on several axes, including AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, 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 Ubie its top capability grade on AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and Setting and Specialty Coverage. Set against Infermedica, Ubie grades higher on AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence 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 Infermedica or Ubie?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Infermedica grades higher on several axes, including AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center, and Ubie grades higher on AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and Commercial Transparency. Infermedica 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 Infermedica and Ubie differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Infermedica and Ubie is on Security Certifications and Trust Center, where Infermedica grades A and Ubie 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 Infermedica and Ubie grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Infermedica and Ubie 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 Patient Voice Agents page.
The regulatory asymmetry is the decisive fact: one product is certified as a medical device for exactly this purpose and the other is a free consumer tool, and a health system embedding either into a care pathway inherits obligations that differ accordingly. Ubie collects sex, age and history through a consumer structure a buyer should understand before directing patients to it.
Neither publishes performance across health literacy, language or cultural background, which is the central validity question in symptom triage, since the system understands some descriptions better than others and sends the rest to the wrong place.