MEDICAL IP vs MediView XR (2026)
Both turn a patient's scan into a three dimensional model of that patient, and they stop at different points. MEDICAL IP produces the segmentation and quantification, converting computed tomography and magnetic resonance into segmented anatomical models under clearances in several jurisdictions. MediView takes that kind of model into the procedure room, rendering the anatomy as a hologram and registering live ultrasound to it during image guided intervention, cleared for adjunctive use with the boundary written by a regulator. One produces the model, the other acts on it while a needle is moving. MediView's artificial intelligence claim sits in its funding news; its product pages and its clearance describe augmented reality and registration, with no learned component described. Neither publishes how segmentation or registration accuracy varies with body habitus, which is where an error in either would show up.
- Segmentation and quantification is the core capability, converting computed tomography and magnetic resonance into segmented anatomical models across a broad portfolio.
- Clearances in several jurisdictions, built steadily over a decade rather than through a single filing.
- Published validation stands behind the flagship products.
- The model is rendered into the procedure itself, projecting the patient's anatomy as a hologram and registering live ultrasound to it during image guided intervention.
- It is cleared for adjunctive use, with the constraint written by a regulator rather than by marketing.
- Deployment is on premise in the procedure room by necessity, since the system registers to live imaging, which answers the data location question structurally.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. MEDICAL IP and MediView XR 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 | MEDICAL IP | MediView XR |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Radiology & Imaging AI | Radiology & Imaging AI |
| Founded | 2015 | 2017 |
| Headquarters | Seoul, South Korea | Cleveland, Ohio |
| Website | medicalip.com | mediview.com |
Side by Side
Select any grade to read the note behind it.
Product updates
The latest logged changes from each vendor, newest first, each linked to its source.
MEDICAL IP
-
Clinical evidence
A retrospective study published in PLOS ONE validated MEDIP PRO's ability to segment orbital structures on CT imaging to assess Thyroid Eye Disease (TED) activity.
Source
Each vendor in one paragraph
Written to be quoted whole. Each paragraph opens the AI Health Index profile of the vendor: what the product is, who buys it and what it does.
MEDICAL IP builds AI segmentation and quantification software for medical imaging. MEDIP PRO converts CT and MRI into segmented 3D anatomical models for planning and 3D printing; DeepCatch measures muscle, visceral fat and bone density on CT, and the DeepCatch X modules take measurements from a single chest X-ray (aorta, heart, torso, tuberculosis and emphysema); DeepFore predicts liver cancer occurrence and DeepFore Recur its recurrence; TiSepX performs lung volumetry.
Source: AI Health Index, September 2026
MediView XR builds XR90, an augmented reality visualization and navigation system for image guided interventional procedures, and markets OmnifyXR for interventional suites. XR90 renders a patient's own anatomy as a 3D hologram derived from their CT, projects live ultrasound into the body in anatomical position as the clinician scans, and tracks the needle path with a holographic guide, so the operator can look at the procedural site rather than away at a monitor.
Source: AI Health Index, September 2026
Questions buyers ask
How do MEDICAL IP and MediView XR work with the EHR?
MEDICAL IP works on standard imaging and names its users.
With MediView XR, the company does not publish which other ultrasound systems are validated, how CT volumes arrive (DICOM from PACS or otherwise), or any EHR or procedure documentation path. GE HealthCare led the Series A, and nothing says whether integration is optimized for, or restricted to, GE imaging equipment. From the AI Health Index, drawn from each vendor's own published materials and the regulatory record, verified September 28, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What evidence is published for MEDICAL IP and MediView XR?
In MEDICAL IP's case, a randomized study compared virtual anatomy dissection with cadaver dissection for the education products, and clinical results with patient specific 3D kidney models in robotic partial nephrectomy have been published. MEDICAL IP is a Seoul National University Hospital spin off, and much of the clinical work comes from that institution.
For MediView XR, the 510(k) summary (K223125) reports non clinical testing only: target registration error on a phantom (mean 2.543 mm), cadavers (2.293 mm) and animals (2.9 mm), a usability evaluation with intended users in simulated conditions, and a GLP porcine study whose results are not in the summary. From the AI Health Index, drawn from each vendor's own published materials and the regulatory record, verified September 28, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Radiology & Imaging AI page.
Both derive anatomy from a patient's own imaging and neither publishes a subgroup or population performance analysis, which has a concrete form here: segmentation boundary accuracy and registration accuracy can both vary with body habitus, tissue characteristics and age, and an error in either propagates silently into whatever is built on it.
MEDICAL IP publishes no hosting, residency or data handling terms, and MediView publishes no health privacy statement, security page or terms on whether procedural data leaves the hospital. Neither publishes pricing.