Softwr

Healthcare · head to head

Aidoc vs PathAI

Aidoc logo

Aidoc

Healthcare

FDA cleared radiology AI for triage and notification of time critical findings

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
PathAI logo

PathAI

Healthcare

Digital pathology image management with an FDA cleared platform for primary diagnosis

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Aidoc the clearances are for triage and notification in the CADt category, so the software may reorder a worklist but may not deliver a diagnosis or replace a read, and business cases built on reduced radiologist workload do not survive contact with the regulatory wording.; PathAI aISight is labelled research use only and cannot be used for primary diagnosis; only AISight Dx carries the FDA clearance and CE-IVD mark, and laboratories regularly buy the wrong configuration and discover they cannot sign out on it.
  • They diverge on capability: Aidoc covers Triage and notification, PathAI covers AISight image management.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Aidoc and PathAI actually diverge.

Attributes where Aidoc and PathAI differ
AttributeAidocPathAI
PlatformsWeb, iOS, AndroidWeb

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Healthcare).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Aidoc

  • Triage and notification
  • Intracranial haemorrhage
  • Pulmonary embolism
  • Large vessel occlusion
  • Pneumothorax on X-ray
  • aiOS platform
  • Clinical workflow notifications

Only in PathAI

  • AISight image management
  • AISight Dx
  • Scanner interoperability
  • Case and worklist management
  • AI algorithm deployment
  • Biopharmaceutical research tooling
  • LIS integration

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Aidoc

  • A regional stroke centre that wants large vessel occlusion flagged and the neurointervention team notified before the radiologist dictatesnot PathAI
  • A trauma centre wanting cervical spine fracture and intra abdominal free gas prioritised in an overnight queue read by one on call radiologistnot PathAI
  • An oncology imaging programme that wants incidental pulmonary embolism caught on staging CTs ordered for a different questionnot PathAI
  • A health system that has bought AI from several vendors and wants one PACS integration through aiOS rather than one integration per algorithmnot PathAI

PathAI

  • An academic medical centre going digital for primary diagnosis that needs the FDA cleared AISight Dx configuration rather than the research labelled versionnot Aidoc
  • A reference laboratory consolidating subspecialty sign out across sites so a specialist pathologist can read cases from any locationnot Aidoc
  • A pharmaceutical company needing consistent quantitative scoring of trial biopsies across many sites and readersnot Aidoc
  • A laboratory with a mixed scanner estate that needs one image management layer rather than each scanner vendor viewernot Aidoc

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Aidoc

  • The clearances are for triage and notification in the CADt category, so the software may reorder a worklist but may not deliver a diagnosis or replace a read, and business cases built on reduced radiologist workload do not survive contact with the regulatory wording.
  • Triage algorithms are tuned for sensitivity, so false positives are routine, and each one interrupts a radiologist. Sites that do not measure positive predictive value in their own case mix see clinician trust erode within months.
  • Pricing is per algorithm and per study volume with no published rate card, so the cost of a multi algorithm deployment escalates sharply and cannot be benchmarked before a sales conversation.
  • The clinical benefit accrues to stroke, trauma and cardiology service lines while the cost usually lands in the radiology or IT budget, which makes internal funding harder than the return on investment slides suggest.
  • Performance depends on scanner protocols and reconstruction settings, so results validated at one site do not transfer, and each deployment needs local validation work that is rarely budgeted for.

PathAI

  • AISight is labelled research use only and cannot be used for primary diagnosis; only AISight Dx carries the FDA clearance and CE-IVD mark, and laboratories regularly buy the wrong configuration and discover they cannot sign out on it.
  • The software licence is usually the smallest line in a digital pathology project, behind scanners, storage and network capacity, so a business case built around the software cost understates the real investment by a wide margin.
  • Whole slide images are very large, so a laboratory that does not model storage growth and retention policy from the start faces storage costs that grow faster than case volume and dominate the renewal.
  • Clinical validation is required per subspecialty rather than once for the platform, which means dermatopathology, gastrointestinal and breast each need their own concordance study and pathologist time before go live.
  • PathAI competes against pathology incumbents that also sell the scanners, and a laboratory buying an independent image management layer takes on the integration risk between scanner vendor and software vendor itself.

Pricing, plan by plan

Aidoc

On request
  • Aidoc$undefined/year
    • Annual subscription priced by algorithm and by study volume
    • aiOS platform integration licensed separately from individual algorithms
    • Multi algorithm bundles negotiated for enterprise deployments

PathAI

On request
  • AISight$undefined/year
    • Priced by annual slide or case volume and by pathologist seats
    • AISight Dx, the clinically cleared configuration, quoted separately from research use AISight
    • Image storage priced by capacity and retention policy

Which should you pick?

Choose Aidoc if

  • You need triage and notification.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want intracranial haemorrhage.
Aidoc review

Choose PathAI if

  • You need aisight image management.
  • You also want aisight dx.
PathAI review

Questions people ask

Is Aidoc or PathAI better?
Neither clearly leads. Aidoc starts at On request and PathAI at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Aidoc or PathAI?
Aidoc starts at On request and PathAI at On request.
Does Aidoc or PathAI run on more platforms?
Aidoc runs on Web, iOS, Android. PathAI runs on Web.
What is Aidoc best used for?
Aidoc is most often used for a regional stroke centre that wants large vessel occlusion flagged and the neurointervention team notified before the radiologist dictates, a trauma centre wanting cervical spine fracture and intra abdominal free gas prioritised in an overnight queue read by one on call radiologist, an oncology imaging programme that wants incidental pulmonary embolism caught on staging cts ordered for a different question, a health system that has bought ai from several vendors and wants one pacs integration through aios rather than one integration per algorithm. Of those, a regional stroke centre that wants large vessel occlusion flagged and the neurointervention team notified before the radiologist dictates and a trauma centre wanting cervical spine fracture and intra abdominal free gas prioritised in an overnight queue read by one on call radiologist are not what PathAI is typically brought in for.
What can Aidoc do that PathAI cannot?
Aidoc covers Triage and notification, Intracranial haemorrhage, Pulmonary embolism, Large vessel occlusion. PathAI covers AISight image management, AISight Dx, Scanner interoperability, Case and worklist management.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Aidoc: Is Aidoc FDA cleared?

Yes, it holds multiple 510(k) clearances, but they are for computer aided triage and notification. It may prioritise a worklist and notify a team. It may not provide a diagnostic interpretation or replace a radiologist read.

PathAI: What is the difference between AISight and AISight Dx?

AISight is for research use only and not for clinical diagnostic use. AISight Dx received FDA 510(k) clearance in June 2025 for primary diagnosis and is CE-IVD marked in the EEA, UK and Switzerland. Only the Dx configuration can be used to sign out cases.

Aidoc: Does it reduce radiologist workload?

No. Every study still needs a full read. The benefit is in the order studies are read and how quickly a receiving specialty is activated, not in reading fewer studies.

PathAI: Can we use our existing scanners?

Yes. AISight is designed to ingest images from multiple whole slide scanner vendors, which is one of the main reasons laboratories choose an independent image management layer.

Aidoc: Can I run other vendors AI through it?

Yes, that is what the aiOS platform layer is for, and for health systems with several AI vendors it is often the main reason to buy Aidoc at all.

PathAI: Do the AI algorithms carry the same clearance as the platform?

No. The platform clearance covers image management for primary diagnosis. Individual algorithms have their own labelling, and many are research use only. Check each one separately.

Aidoc: Is pricing published?

No. It is quoted per algorithm and by annual study volume, and enterprise bundles are negotiated case by case.

PathAI: Is pricing published?

No. It is quoted by slide or case volume, pathologist seats and storage, with the clinically cleared configuration priced separately.

Share

Related pages

More on Aidoc

More on PathAI

Keep looking

Other head to heads