Softwr

Healthcare · head to head

Aidoc vs Rad AI

Aidoc logo

Aidoc

Healthcare

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

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Rad AI logo

Rad AI

Healthcare

Generative reporting and follow-up tracking for radiology, positioned outside the diagnostic device boundary

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.; Rad AI the products are not FDA cleared devices and are not intended to be, so any claim that Rad AI improves diagnostic accuracy is unsupported; what has been measured is reporting speed and follow-up completion, not detection.
  • They diverge on capability: Aidoc covers Triage and notification, Rad AI covers Impressions.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Aidoc and Rad AI actually diverge.

Attributes where Aidoc and Rad AI differ
AttributeAidocRad AI
PlatformsWeb, iOS, AndroidWindows, Web, Cloud

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 Rad AI

  • Impressions
  • Reporting
  • Continuity
  • Style learning
  • Omni Reconcile
  • PACS and dictation embedding
  • Patient outreach workflows
  • Audit reporting

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 Rad AI
  • A trauma centre wanting cervical spine fracture and intra abdominal free gas prioritised in an overnight queue read by one on call radiologistnot Rad AI
  • An oncology imaging programme that wants incidental pulmonary embolism caught on staging CTs ordered for a different questionnot Rad AI
  • A health system that has bought AI from several vendors and wants one PACS integration through aiOS rather than one integration per algorithmnot Rad AI

Rad AI

  • A private radiology practice whose read volume has grown faster than it can recruit and that wants dictation time per study reduced without changing PACSnot Aidoc
  • A health system losing revenue and exposing itself to liability because recommended follow-up imaging on incidental findings is never bookednot Aidoc
  • A radiology department standardising impression quality across a mixed group of employed and locum radiologistsnot Aidoc
  • A group deploying an AI tool that must not trigger a device validation programme, because governance capacity is already consumed by a triage algorithm rolloutnot 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.

Rad AI

  • The products are not FDA cleared devices and are not intended to be, so any claim that Rad AI improves diagnostic accuracy is unsupported; what has been measured is reporting speed and follow-up completion, not detection.
  • Generated impressions require radiologist review and signature, so the time saving evaporates in any group whose radiologists rewrite the draft rather than edit it, and adoption varies sharply by individual.
  • It is bound to your dictation platform, so a group planning to move off PowerScribe should sequence that decision first or expect to redo the Rad AI integration.
  • Continuity depends on the quality of recommendation language in historical reports, and departments with inconsistent phrasing get poor recall until reporting practice is standardised.
  • Pricing is not published and is structured per radiologist or per study depending on the product mix, which makes it hard to compare against image-analysis AI vendors that price per scan.

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

Rad AI

On request
  • Rad AI platform$undefined/year
    • Priced per radiologist or per study volume depending on product and contract
    • Impressions, Reporting and Continuity licensed separately
    • Annual subscription with implementation and integration scoped per site

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 Rad AI if

  • You need impressions.
  • You work on Windows, Web, Cloud.
  • You also want reporting.
Rad AI review

Questions people ask

Is Aidoc or Rad AI better?
Neither clearly leads. Aidoc starts at On request and Rad AI at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Aidoc or Rad AI?
Aidoc starts at On request and Rad AI at On request.
Does Aidoc or Rad AI run on more platforms?
Aidoc runs on Web, iOS, Android. Rad AI runs on Windows, Web, Cloud.
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 Rad AI is typically brought in for.
What can Aidoc do that Rad AI cannot?
Aidoc covers Triage and notification, Intracranial haemorrhage, Pulmonary embolism, Large vessel occlusion. Rad AI covers Impressions, Reporting, Continuity, Style learning.

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.

Rad AI: Is Rad AI FDA cleared?

No, and by design. The products draft text and manage follow-up workflow rather than interpreting images, so they fall outside the device pathway. Treat any diagnostic accuracy claim with scepticism.

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.

Rad AI: Does the radiologist still sign the report?

Yes. Output is a draft that the radiologist reviews and signs; nothing is released autonomously.

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.

Rad AI: Which product actually pays for itself?

Continuity has the clearest financial case, because recommended follow-up imaging that gets completed is billable work that currently does not happen.

Aidoc: Is pricing published?

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

Rad AI: Will it work with our dictation system?

It is deepest with Nuance PowerScribe. Confirm your specific dictation and PACS combination before contracting, because integration depth is the main deployment variable.

Share

Related pages

More on Aidoc

More on Rad AI

Keep looking

Other head to heads