Sword Health vs Verily (2026)
Two platforms selling clinical programmes to employers and health plans rather than to providers. Sword delivers musculoskeletal and adjacent care with motion tracking and real time feedback at substantial scale, holding two properly named security credentials and one of the clearest per product oversight structures in this index. Verily runs chronic condition management and research programmes for plans, employers and pharmacy benefit managers, with a credible certification set and a better designed health privacy structure than most consumer facing arrangements here. Both are labour purchases wrapped in software, so price them against running the programme internally. Neither publishes engagement adjusted outcomes, which is the number that decides whether a digital programme worked or simply recruited the already motivated.
- It delivers musculoskeletal and adjacent care programmes to employer and plan populations at substantial documented scale, with two genuine security credentials correctly named.
- The oversight structure is one of the clearest in this index and is described per product rather than as a single blanket statement.
- Coverage has broadened quickly across several care programmes rather than remaining a single condition service.
- It works chronic condition management and clinical research programmes for plans, employers and pharmacy benefit managers with a credible certification set.
- The health privacy structure is better designed than most consumer facing arrangements in this index.
- Retrieval breadth is real and honestly bounded, with the affiliated clinical entity gathering records under member consent.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Sword Health and Verily 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 | Sword Health | Verily |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Remote Monitoring & Chronic Care | Remote Monitoring & Chronic Care |
| Founded | 2015 | 2015 |
| Headquarters | Salt Lake City, Utah | South San Francisco, California |
| Website | swordhealth.com | verily.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 Sword Health its top capability grade on Autonomy and Oversight Model and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Set against Verily, Sword Health grades higher on Clinical and Operational Evidence and Security Certifications and Trust Center. 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 Verily its top capability grade on Autonomy and Oversight Model. Set against Sword Health, Verily grades higher on several axes, including AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, HIPAA and BAA Posture and FDA and Regulatory Status. 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
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose Sword Health or Verily?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Sword Health grades higher on Clinical and Operational Evidence and Security Certifications and Trust Center, and Verily grades higher on several axes, including AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, HIPAA and BAA Posture and FDA and Regulatory Status. Verily 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 Sword Health and Verily differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Sword Health and Verily is on Clinical and Operational Evidence, where Sword Health grades B and Verily 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 Sword Health and Verily grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Sword Health and Verily the same on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model and Technology Transparency. 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 Sword Health and Verily not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Sword Health and Verily 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 Remote Monitoring & Chronic Care page.
Both wrap software around clinical labour sold to employers and plans, so the buyer is purchasing a service and should price it against running the equivalent programme internally. Sword collects data beyond the clinical encounter through its hardware and publishes no terms governing that holding, no business associate position and no subgroup performance in a technology stack where motion and sensor variation are known to matter.
Verily names its products and agents but not the technology beneath them and publishes no governance framework. Neither publishes engagement adjusted outcomes, which is where digital programme results usually weaken.