Diagnostics & Genomics
C

Caris Life Sciences

Precision oncology company (NASDAQ: CAI) in Irving, Texas, combining whole exome and transcriptome tumor profiling in its own laboratories with AI signatures. MI Cancer Seek was approved by FDA in November 2024 (P240010) with companion diagnostic indications, and the company publishes which results fall inside and outside that label.

Its AI signatures, offered as laboratory developed tests at no additional cost, include Caris GPSai for tumor of origin (95 percent accuracy across more than 97,000 cases in a 2025 validation) and Caris FOLFIRSTai for first-line chemotherapy choice in metastatic colorectal cancer (validated on real world and phase III TRIBE2 data); MI Clarity applies computational pathology to breast cancer recurrence risk, and a research-use Molecular Tumor Board Report adds further signatures. The CODEai platform links molecular, treatment and outcome data for more than 484,000 patients for research partners. Orders and results run inside Epic and OncoEMR at more than 315 organizations. Caris Assure provides blood-based profiling and Caris Detect early detection.

AI Health Index verifiedSeptember 28, 2026
Compare Caris Life Sciences with other vendors
Founded
—
Headquarters
Irving, Texas
Categories
diagnostics-and-genomics
Indexed Products
MI Cancer Seek, Caris GPSai, Caris FOLFIRSTai, MI Clarity, Caris Molecular Tumor Board Report, CODEai, Caris Assure
Buyer Segments
Academic Medical Center, Community Health System, Large IDN, Medical Group, Pharma / Life Sciences
Assessment

Capability Axes

The short answer

Caris Life Sciences is a publicly traded precision oncology company combining comprehensive molecular profiling with AI interpretation. Its MI Cancer Seek assay received FDA approval in November 2024 and, per the company, performs simultaneous whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing with FDA approved companion diagnostic indications for solid tumors, analyzing more than 23,000 genes from a single tissue sample. The CodeAI platform runs over a large multimodal clinico genomic dataset to generate proprietary signatures predicting therapy response, tissue of origin and metastasis risk, delivered in a molecular tumor board report. The AI Health Index grades it A on Clinical and Operational Evidence, A on FDA and Regulatory Status, B on HIPAA and BAA Posture and A on Setting and Specialty Coverage, four top grades, while B on Model and Technology Transparency and C on Commercial Transparency sit lower. Verified as of Sep 28, 2026.

An AI Health Index grade measures what a buyer can verify from public sources on the date shown. It is not a rating of how good the product is. A vendor can build an excellent system and grade low on an axis because it publishes nothing an outsider can check. How grades read

AI Capability
BB on AI CentralityThe model is the engine of a core module. The platform carries other value, but this capability does not exist without it.
Vendor Published

The models are the engine of several products, and the flagship report rests on sequencing. Caris GPSai uses neural networks on exome and transcriptome data to match a tumor to 90 cancer categories, Caris FOLFIRSTai combines about 5,000 machine learning models to predict which first-line chemotherapy sequence benefits a metastatic colorectal cancer patient, MI Clarity applies computational pathology to breast cancer recurrence risk without sequencing, and the research-use Molecular Tumor Board Report adds further signatures such as MGMTai. MI Cancer Seek, the FDA approved test at the center of the offering, is a whole exome and transcriptome sequencing assay whose approved claims rest on the sequencing rather than on the AI.

BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelThe oversight structure is described and one part is missing, commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.
Vendor Published

The oversight structure is described and one part is missing. Tests are ordered by physicians and reported from the company's CLIA certified laboratory, with the Pathologist in Chief and medical staff available for consultation; the report states that its therapy associations do not replace the treating physician's independent judgment; GPSai is presented as additional insight for unknown primary or ambiguous cases, and FOLFIRSTai as a consideration between two standard chemotherapy sequences. The label scope table tells the reader which results the FDA approval covers and which it does not, and the Molecular Tumor Board Report is labeled research use only for tumor boards and case consults.

What is missing is what the reader is told about each prediction's confidence and limits: whether a GPSai match below a threshold is flagged, when a FOLFIRSTai call should not be relied on, and how the research-use report's suggestion that it can help confirm a diagnosis squares with its research-use label.

BB on Model and Technology TransparencyThe approach or the suppliers are named without the version and update discipline behind them. Naming a supplier is the entry to this band both here and on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, which ask different questions of the same disclosure: who receives the data, and what produces the output.
Vendor Published

The approach behind each signature is named, without version or update discipline. GPSai uses trained neural networks on exome and transcriptome data, trained on more than 250,000 Caris cases across 90 cancer categories; FOLFIRSTai is an ensemble of about 5,000 machine learning models on the molecular profile; the brain metastasis signatures state their training cohorts; MI Clarity uses computational pathology; and CODEai is the linked molecular, treatment and outcome dataset for more than 484,000 patients that the models draw on.

The approved MI Cancer Seek assay has an FDA-approved change control plan for its software, but nothing comparable is published for the signatures: no version identifiers on reports, no account of how a retrained signature is validated, and no notice to clinicians who received results from an earlier version.

BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureSubstantial partial disclosure, or a chain that is structurally short: an in house build, a cleared model that cannot be quietly swapped, or a deployment where the transfer does not occur at all. Naming the model provider exits the band below into this one; the axis rises from here on the completeness of the party list and on the terms that govern data once it arrives.
Regulatory Filing

A structurally short chain for the models, with the parties around the data only partly named. The signatures are Caris's own, trained and run on its infrastructure, so no outside model provider sits in the chain. The annual report names Amazon Web Services among its computing providers alongside on-premise and co-located systems, describes third party network monitoring and penetration testing, and says de-identified data flows to Precision Oncology Alliance members, biopharma partners and academic researchers, with Alliance members contributing outcome data back; Epic and Flatiron OncoEMR carry orders and results.

No subprocessor list or list of data recipients is published.

AA on Clinical and Operational EvidencePeer reviewed or independently evaluated performance, prospective and multi site where the claim requires it, with the method available to read. The grade describes the strength of the evidence, not its direction: a rigorous study that found no benefit grades by its design, and the note leads with what it found.
Peer Reviewed Publication

Validation is published for the approved assay and for the signatures, including against independent trial data. MI Cancer Seek's analytical and clinical performance underpinned its FDA premarket approval. FOLFIRSTai was validated on two sets independent of its training data: 467 curated real world cases and 296 cases analyzed retrospectively from the randomized phase III TRIBE2 trial, where patients treated in line with its prediction had median overall survival 17.5 months longer than those treated against it. GPSai was trained on more than 250,000 cases, validated prospectively on 3,200 cases, and reported at 95 percent accuracy in a 2025 validation across more than 97,000 cases. In August 2026 the company published a study of AI-guided therapy selection and survival in pancreatic cancer in npj Precision Oncology, and the brain metastasis signatures state their training cohorts (12,994 lung and 3,371 breast cancer cases with matched survival).

Most of this work is company-led and retrospective; the TRIBE2 validation is the strongest element because the trial data were generated outside Caris.

BB on AI Safety and PHI StewardshipCategorical commitments are published, such as no training on customer data, without the retention schedule behind them.
Regulatory Filing

The clinical relationship is covered by published instruments, and the research dataset rests on a de-identification method that is not named. Caris states in its annual notice to physicians that it is a covered entity and publishes a HIPAA notice of privacy practices, a separate privacy notice and a Washington health data notice. The annual report says it contributes de-identified molecular data to the Caris Precision Oncology Alliance, whose members may contribute outcome data for joint research, and furnishes de-identified information to biopharma and academic partners, relying on various de-identification methods and acknowledging they could fail. The CODEai platform links molecular profiles with treatment and outcome data for more than 484,000 patients.

A tumor type, molecular profile, treatment sequence and survival interval together describe a person narrowly, so the method (expert determination or removal of listed identifiers) matters, and it is not stated. How outcome data is obtained and linked to profiled patients, and how long specimens and sequence are kept, are not published. Safety engineering for the signatures is not described.

Regulatory and Compliance
BB on HIPAA and BAA PostureBusiness associate status is stated and supported by a substantive privacy document, with the agreement or its scope not fully published. For a vendor outside the United States, an equivalent regime documented to this depth grades here. A vendor whose product does not process protected health information grades here too when it says so plainly and explains the scope, with a service privacy document behind it: stating a position a buyer can rely on is the posture this axis grades, and the band above is closed to it because there is no agreement to publish.
Vendor Published

Covered entity status is stated plainly and a substantive privacy document reaches the patient; no contracting instrument is published. The annual notice to physicians (September 2025) states that under HIPAA Caris is a healthcare provider and a covered entity, links its notice of privacy practices, and sets out its Stark and anti-kickback compliance policy to referring physicians. The privacy policies index adds a general privacy notice and a Washington health data notice.

No agreement for ordering institutions, business associate terms for the research platform, EHR partners or the Precision Oncology Alliance, or subcontractor provisions are published.

CC on Security Certifications and Trust CenterControls are described with an outside check behind them, such as independent penetration testing on a stated cadence, but no attestation against a recognized framework. A certification that tests the software security features rather than the vendor operations, such as federal health IT certification, is an outside check of this kind.
Regulatory Filing

Controls are described with an outside check on a stated cadence, and no attestation. The annual report (Item 1C) describes a program informed by NIST CSF 2.0 with an emphasis on HIPAA, a formal IT risk assessment and external network and production application penetration tests at least annually, in-house penetration testing, independent risk assessments by outside advisors, third party network monitoring, two-factor authentication, and an incident response plan led by a Chief Information Security Officer; vendors are reviewed through questionnaires and their SOC 2 reports where available.

No SOC 2, HITRUST or ISO/IEC 27001 attestation of Caris's own is named, and the laboratory's CLIA and CAP credentials cover testing quality. The CODEai research platform is reachable by outside organizations, which makes its access control and export limits part of the security question.

AA on FDA and Regulatory StatusThe regulatory position is unambiguous and verifiable: a clearance or authorization identifiable in the public databases, with the version and indication it actually covers.
Regulatory Filing

An approval in FDA's database with its indications, and the unapproved parts named as such. MI Cancer Seek was approved through premarket approval P240010 on 5 November 2024 as a next generation sequencing test on FFPE tumor tissue with companion diagnostic indications; supplements include an FDA-approved predetermined change control plan for minor software modifications (S001, February 2025) and later manufacturing and quality control changes.

The MI Cancer Seek page publishes a label scope table: variants in 228 genes, MSI, TMB, one copy number alteration in breast cancer and 8 companion diagnostic indications are within the approved label, while the remaining genes, HRD, RNA results and the AI signatures GPSai and FOLFIRSTai are not, with the instruction not to imply that all services are FDA approved. The sample report states that it mixes FDA approved tests and laboratory developed tests, and the Molecular Tumor Board Report is labeled research use only.

CC on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureResponsible artificial intelligence is committed to in policy language with no evaluation behind it. Most of the index sits here.
Vendor Published

Validation is published and evaluation across patient groups is not. The signatures are validated on large cohorts (GPSai on more than 97,000 cases, FOLFIRSTai on real world and phase III trial data), and the annual report acknowledges the risk that its AI may need retraining or be limited by regulation. Nothing published reports signature performance by ancestry, sex, age, insurance status or treating site, and no governance framework or monitoring process for the signatures after release is described. The FDA-reviewed change control plan for MI Cancer Seek covers the approved assay's software, not the AI signatures.

The question matters most for signatures trained on observed outcomes. FOLFIRSTai and the brain metastasis signatures learn from treatment and survival as they happened, so where a group was treated less aggressively or diagnosed later, that history can enter the model as if it were biology.

BB on AI Liability and RecourseA published falsifiable commitment, or a real correction route the affected person can exercise against the vendor. A published error rate with its method and denominator grades here. A statutory right that runs to the covered entity rather than to the vendor does not reach this band on its own: every other route here asks something of the vendor, and being located in a particular jurisdiction is not conduct.
Vendor Published

Performance is published with its denominators, and the approved and unapproved parts of the report are separated in writing; nothing makes the company answerable for a prediction. The GPSai overview reports 95 percent accuracy in a 2025 validation across more than 97,000 cases, after prospective validation on 3,200 cases; FOLFIRSTai reports that patients treated in line with its prediction lived 17.5 months longer in validation on 467 real world cases and 296 cases from the phase III TRIBE2 trial. The MI Cancer Seek page lists which results are within the FDA approved label (variants in 228 genes, MSI, TMB, one copy number alteration, 8 companion diagnostic indications) and which are not, naming GPSai and FOLFIRSTai among the latter, and the sample report states that treatment decisions rest on the physician's independent judgment.

No guarantee, indemnity or correction route attaches to a signature result.

Integration and Deployment
AA on EHR and Interoperability DepthNamed bidirectional integrations with major record systems, verifiable in marketplace listings or integration documentation, with evidence the connection runs in production.
Vendor Published

Named bidirectional integrations with major record systems, in production at scale. Caris joined Epic's ORA network as the first whole exome and whole transcriptome partner, integrating test ordering and results with structured genomic data inside Epic, and its profiling is available inside Flatiron's OncoEMR for ordering, order tracking and result delivery. The EHR integrations page reports more than 315 organizations and 3,330 clinical locations integrated, with an average 2.2 day turnaround improvement, and quotes UPMC Hillman Cancer Center on ordering and viewing results inside Epic. The company says it can integrate with any CMS-certified record system.

It is not stated which result elements arrive as discrete data in each system, or whether updated interpretations reach the record.

CC on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyA single hosted option with location implied rather than committed.
Regulatory Filing

The company runs its own infrastructure plus a named cloud, with no data location committed. Testing happens in Caris laboratories on shipped specimens, and the annual report describes on-premise, co-located and cloud computing infrastructure, naming Amazon Web Services as a provider whose interruption could affect results. The clinical pipeline, the CODEai research platform offered to outside biopharma and academic users, and the data shared with Precision Oncology Alliance members are different uses of the same material.

No region, residency commitment, separation between clinical and research environments, retention schedule for sequence and linked outcomes, or subprocessor list is published.

Commercial
CC on Commercial TransparencyNo price is published and the posture is discoverable: a buyer can establish how the product is sold and what drives the cost before contacting the vendor. Most of the index sits here.
Regulatory Filing

No price is published and the posture is discoverable. Caris bills insurance, Medicare and state Medicaid programs directly, says cost varies with the profile ordered and the number of biomarkers and technologies used, performs medically necessary tests regardless of network status, appeals denials on the patient's behalf, requires an Advance Beneficiary Notice where Medicare coverage criteria are not met, and offers a financial assistance program. GPSai and FOLFIRSTai are included at no additional cost, and the Molecular Tumor Board Report is available on request. The annual report says average selling prices are set by payer arrangements and do not differ materially by cancer type, and that MI Profile's average rose with the MI Cancer Seek launch.

No list price, self-pay rate or biopharma rate is published.

AA on Setting and Specialty CoverageWhere the product is validated to operate is named and supported, settings and specialties both, whether the coverage is broad or deliberately narrow.
Vendor Published

Coverage is named product by product and signature by signature, with validation behind each. MI Cancer Seek profiles solid tumors in adult and pediatric patients with its FDA-labeled indications; FOLFIRSTai applies only to metastatic colorectal cancer patients eligible for first-line FOLFOX or FOLFIRI and is validated in that population; GPSai applies to cancers of unknown primary and ambiguous cases across 90 categories; MI Clarity is limited to breast cancer recurrence risk; the Molecular Tumor Board Report's tumor-specific modules name their cancers (colorectal, breast, pancreatic, glioblastoma). Blood-based profiling (Caris Assure) and early detection (Caris Detect) are offered separately.

Citable summary

Self contained paragraphs, free to quote with attribution. Grades shown resolve from this record and change when it is regraded.

What Caris Life Sciences does, and what the FDA approval covers

The AI Health Index grades Caris Life Sciences A on FDA and Regulatory Status and A on Clinical and Operational Evidence, and the pairing is worth reading precisely because regulatory standing here is narrower than the product. The approval attaches to the MI Cancer Seek assay with companion diagnostic indications for solid tumors, which is a specific regulated claim about specific tests. The AI signatures generated by the CodeAI platform, including brain metastasis risk models trained on named cohorts with matched survival outcomes, are a different kind of output and should be evaluated on their published validation rather than assumed to sit inside the approval. Both matter to an oncologist; conflating them is the common error. Verified as of Sep 28, 2026.

Source: AI Health Index, Sep 28, 2026

How Caris grades on the AI Health Index, and where a buyer should ask more

The AI Health Index grades Caris Life Sciences at the top of the scale on evidence, regulatory status, HIPAA posture and setting coverage, verified as of Sep 28, 2026, which is an unusually strong combination and reflects a company operating as a regulated diagnostics business rather than as a software vendor. The lower grades sit on disclosure of method and commerce: B on Model and Technology Transparency, C on AI Governance and Bias Disclosure and C on Commercial Transparency. The bias grade is the one to press on in oncology specifically, because a signature trained on a cohort that under represents a population may perform differently in it, and the training cohorts for the newer signatures are described by size rather than by composition.

Source: AI Health Index, Sep 28, 2026

Common questions

What does Caris molecular profiling cost for a self pay patient?

Caris Life Sciences does not publish a self pay price, and the AI Health Index does not hold one. The AI Health Index grades the company C on Commercial Transparency as of Sep 28, 2026, which records that pricing cannot be established from public material before contacting the company, and the index does not publish figures it cannot verify. What is worth knowing is that a list price is rarely the number a patient pays for comprehensive genomic profiling. The amount usually depends on coverage determination, whether the test carries an FDA approved companion diagnostic indication for the situation, which affects how it is billed, and on any financial assistance the laboratory operates. The questions to ask the ordering oncologist or the laboratory directly are whether the specific assay is covered for the diagnosis, what the patient responsibility estimate is before the sample is sent, and whether assistance is available, since all three are decided case by case rather than by a published rate.

What is Caris Life Sciences?

Caris Life Sciences is a publicly traded precision oncology company that combines comprehensive molecular profiling with AI interpretation to guide cancer treatment decisions. Its MI Cancer Seek assay holds FDA approval with companion diagnostic indications for solid tumors and performs simultaneous whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing from a single tissue sample. Alongside it, the CodeAI platform generates proprietary signatures predicting therapy response, tissue of origin and metastasis risk from a large multimodal clinico genomic dataset, MI Clarity applies computational pathology to breast cancer recurrence risk without genomic sequencing, and Caris Assure is its blood based platform. The AI Health Index indexes it in diagnostics and genomics and grades it across fifteen capability axes with the date of last verification published on the record.

Is Caris molecular profiling FDA approved?

The MI Cancer Seek assay received FDA approval in November 2024 with companion diagnostic indications for solid tumors, and the AI Health Index grades Caris Life Sciences A on FDA and Regulatory Status as of Sep 28, 2026, one of its strongest axes. The distinction that matters clinically is scope. An approval attaches to a defined assay and defined indications, not to every analysis the company offers, so the AI generated signatures produced by its CodeAI platform should be evaluated on their own published validation rather than treated as covered by the assay approval. The AI Health Index grades regulatory status and evidence as separate axes for exactly this reason.

Does Caris Life Sciences pay to be listed on the AI Health Index?

No. The AI Health Index is researched from public sources, no vendor pays for inclusion, for a grade or for placement, and every record carries the date it was last verified. A vendor that publishes more is regraded and the change is logged.

Tracked Since Listing

Product updates

Material product, regulatory, evidence and commercial changes at Caris Life Sciences, each verified against a live source and tagged to the capability axis it bears on. Funding rounds and awards are not product changes and are not logged.

Sep 29, 2026Product / capability

Caris launched an enhanced Caris Assure liquid biopsy that combines whole exome sequencing, whole transcriptome sequencing and whole blood analysis in one assay, so tumor derived alterations can be told apart from clonal hematopoiesis and incidental germline findings. Coverage spans more than 23,000 genes at depths up to 40,000x. For patients tested repeatedly during treatment, results are now sorted into molecular response, intermediate or molecular progression, with a median turnaround of about seven days.

Bears on: Clinical and Operational EvidenceSource
Aug 27, 2026Clinical evidence

Caris Life Sciences published a study in npj Precision Oncology reporting that its AI guided therapy selection predicts longer survival in pancreatic cancer patients. Pancreatic cancer is a deliberately hard test case, with short survival and few targetable alterations, so a survival signal there is a stronger claim than the same signal in a more tractable tumor type. The work validates Caris AI Insights specifically rather than the molecular profiling platform in general.

Bears on: Clinical and Operational EvidenceSource
Mar 26, 2026Product / capability

Caris added two Caris AI Insights signatures assessing brain metastasis risk in breast and lung cancer, bringing its proprietary signature count to seven. The signatures were trained on 12,994 NSCLC cases and 3,371 breast cancer cases with matched survival outcomes, and generate a personalized predictive score from a patient's whole exome and whole transcriptome data, visualized as Kaplan Meier curves. They are delivered in the Caris Molecular Tumor Board Report, a research use only report available at no additional cost when ordering MI Cancer Seek.

Bears on: FDA and Regulatory StatusSource
Our read on these updates →Tracked since Mar 2026
Alternatives

Alternatives to Caris Life Sciences

Vendors in the same categories as Caris Life Sciences whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.

Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.

Rare disease genomic diagnosis company (NASDAQ: WGS) in Gaithersburg, Maryland, running exome and genome sequencing in its own accredited laboratory and interpreting it with automation…

Guardant Health is a publicly traded precision oncology company (Nasdaq: GH), founded in 2012 and based in Palo Alto, California, that runs blood and tissue cancer tests in its own laboratories.

Point-of-care EEG company (NASDAQ: CBLL) whose headband and recorder can be placed in minutes in emergency departments and ICUs where conventional EEG and neurology reading are not…

Digital Diagnostics, founded in Coralville, Iowa as IDx Technologies by retina specialist and computer engineer Michael Abramoff, MD, PhD, builds autonomous AI diagnostic systems.

Blood-based cancer screening company (NASDAQ: FRNM) whose multiomics platform reads cell-free DNA methylation at single base resolution, alongside protein and autoantibody signals, with…

Precision oncology company in Waltham, Massachusetts, combining sequencing in its own CAP accredited, CLIA certified laboratory with models of tumor and immune biology.

Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the fifteen axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.

Comparisons

Compared With

Each comparison carries a written verdict, the buyer conditions that favor each vendor, and a graded side by side. Pairs that cross a category boundary are grouped separately, and their verdicts state where the boundary sits rather than manufacturing a head to head.

Head to head

Vendors the index assesses as direct competitors to Caris Life Sciences for the same buyer.

Adjacent comparisons

Products a buyer researches alongside Caris Life Sciences that do a different job: a different category, a different layer of the stack, or a specialist scope. These pages exist to settle whether the comparison is real before it settles which one to pick.

Commercial

Pricing

Vendor-published figures are labeled as such. Figures labeled “Estimated” are derived from third-party sources and have not been confirmed by the vendor.

Entry Price Pricing Basis BAA Tier Implementation Source
Contact the vendor
Per test billed to insurance, Medicare and Medicaid; AI signatures included at no additional cost; biopharma data partnerships negotiated separately — — Regulatory Filing

No list or self-pay price is published. Caris bills insurers, Medicare and state Medicaid programs directly, says cost varies with the profile ordered and the biomarkers and technologies used, appeals denials, requires an Advance Beneficiary Notice where Medicare criteria are not met, and offers financial assistance. GPSai and FOLFIRSTai are included at no additional cost, and the Molecular Tumor Board Report is available on request. The annual report says average selling prices are set by payer arrangements and do not differ materially by cancer type.