Particle Health vs Zus Health (2026)
Both retrieve clinical data from the national networks and they hand it back in different shapes. Particle is an interface: query the networks through one bidirectional connection, with an enrichment layer on top, which suits a company building its own product and wanting data on demand. Zus is a platform: it assembles and maintains the longitudinal record across thousands of provider sites, prescription fills and admission alerts, deduplicated and normalised, with the most detailed consent architecture in this index and a published match rate that admits its own imperfection. The commitment differs as much as the capability. An interface is easy to leave; a platform whose design property is cross tenant sharing is not, and neither vendor publishes a security attestation for holdings of that size.
- It is retrieval infrastructure queried through a single bidirectional interface across the national networks, so a developer takes data on demand rather than adopting a platform.
- The enrichment layer sits on top of genuine interoperability plumbing, which is harder to build than a document reader and harder to replace once embedded.
- For a company building its own product, an interface is a smaller commitment than a data platform with its own consent model and tenancy design.
- It assembles and maintains the longitudinal record rather than returning a query result, deduplicating and normalising across thousands of provider sites, prescription fills and admission alerts.
- It publishes a match rate of roughly ninety percent, which is an explicit admission that identity resolution is imperfect, and it links every summarised point to the underlying record.
- The consent architecture is described in more detail than almost anything in this index, gating third party data on an asserted treatment relationship.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Particle Health and Zus Health 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 | Particle Health | Zus Health |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Healthcare Administrative Automation | Healthcare Administrative Automation |
| Headquarters | New York, New York | Not recorded |
| Website | particlehealth.com | zushealth.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 Particle Health its top capability grade on EHR and Interoperability Depth. Set against Zus Health, Particle Health grades higher on Model and Technology Transparency and AI Liability and Recourse. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on Model Supply Chain Disclosure. 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 Zus Health its top capability grade on EHR and Interoperability Depth. Set against Particle Health, Zus Health grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. 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 Particle Health or Zus Health?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Particle Health grades higher on Model and Technology Transparency and AI Liability and Recourse, and Zus Health grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model Supply Chain Disclosure and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. Zus Health 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 Particle Health and Zus Health differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Particle Health and Zus Health is on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, where Particle Health grades D and Zus Health grades B. 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 Particle Health and Zus Health grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Particle Health and Zus Health the same on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Neither holds an advantage the index can evidence on those axes, so they should not carry weight in a selection between these two.
What have Particle Health and Zus Health not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Particle Health and Zus Health published thin or absent detail on Model Supply Chain Disclosure. The AI Health Index treats an absent disclosure as a gap in the public record rather than a failure of the product, so these are the axes to get in writing during diligence instead of inferring from the grade.
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.
The architectural difference matters more than the feature comparison: one is a query interface and the other is a multi tenant platform whose central design property is cross tenant data sharing, which means no single tenant deployment is possible by construction and the aggregation risk is inherent rather than incidental. Neither publishes a security attestation or trust centre, which is consequential for platforms holding assembled records for very large patient populations. Neither publishes pricing. Ask both for match rate and for what happens to a record that cannot be confidently resolved to a patient.