About us
Radiological.ai: the company, the assistant, and how we research vendors
Radiological.ai is building an AI radiology assistant that flags suspected findings, prioritizes the worklist so suspected urgent studies surface first, and drafts the structured report into your own template. The product is pre-launch and currently accepting signups from US radiology groups, imaging centers, hospitals and teleradiology teams. Alongside the product, we publish vendor comparison and cost research for radiology software buyers, and this page sets out exactly where that research comes from.
Last updated August 2026. If a figure on this site is out of date, tell us at [email protected] and we will correct the page.
The short version
- What we make
- An AI radiology assistant: finding flags, worklist triage, structured report drafting across X-ray, CT and MRI.
- Stage
- Access is by application, and we scope each group individually before onboarding.
- Market
- United States. Radiology groups, outpatient imaging centers, hospital departments and teleradiology teams.
- Contact
- [email protected]
Boundaries we hold
What Radiological.ai is not
Radiology software marketing has a habit of implying more than it can support. These are the four claims we do not make, stated plainly so you can hold us to them.
Not a diagnosis
The assistant flags suspected findings and drafts report language for a qualified radiologist to confirm, change or dismiss. It does not diagnose, and it is not a substitute for professional medical judgment.
Not a regulatory claim
We do not make FDA clearance claims for our own product in our marketing, and we do not describe it as a cleared medical device. Where we discuss the regulatory status of other vendors, we point at public records.
Not an imaging provider
We do not operate imaging centers, we do not read studies, and we do not compete with our customers for referrals. Some vendors in this market are owned by imaging operators, which is a fair question to ask any vendor including us.
Not a place to send PHI
Please do not send protected health information, patient identifiers or clinical images through the contact form or by email. The site collects a work email and optional role and volume details, nothing clinical.
Where the research comes from
The sources behind our comparison and pricing pages
Almost nobody in radiology software publishes a list price, so buyer research in this category is mostly guesswork dressed up as authority. We handle that by going to public records instead of asking vendors what they charge. Here is every source category this site actually uses.
| Source | What it is | How we use it |
|---|---|---|
| USAspending.gov | Federal prime award records | What US federal agencies actually paid for named radiology software, by vendor and year. Used on the pricing and comparison pages where no vendor publishes a list price. |
| data.cms.gov | Medicare fee schedules and utilization | National allowed amounts per radiology CPT code, used on the billing and reimbursement pages instead of vendor-supplied economics. |
| Vendor documentation | Product pages, support docs, press releases | Capability claims, product names, end-of-life dates and ownership changes, always attributed to the vendor rather than stated as our own finding. |
| Peer-reviewed literature | Journal publications and abstracts | Head-to-head performance data where it exists, cited with the study design and its limitations rather than the headline number alone. |
| KLAS published rankings | Best in KLAS category results | Customer-satisfaction standing in a category, reported as the award it is and dated, not as a general quality verdict. |
| FDA clearance databases | Public 510(k) records | Regulatory status of third-party imaging AI modules, checked against the vendor claim rather than in place of it. |
Public procurement records are the most useful of these and the least used by other buyer guides. Federal agencies buy the same radiology software commercial groups do, and unlike commercial contracts those awards are published with the vendor, the amount and the date, which is why our radiology software pricing research can put real dollar figures next to products whose vendors publish none.
Editorial standards
The rules we write comparison pages by
We sell a product in this market and we also publish research about the market. That is a real conflict of interest, and the only honest way to handle it is to be explicit about the rules we hold ourselves to.
We name the source and the date
Every figure on a comparison or pricing page carries the source it came from and the month it was compiled. Vendors change pricing, product names and ownership often enough that an undated number is a liability, so we date them and revisit them.
Vendor claims stay labeled as vendor claims
When a vendor states an efficiency gain, an accuracy figure or an install-base size, we attribute it to the vendor. We do not restate marketing numbers as independent findings, and we say plainly when a claim has no published methodology behind it.
We publish where competitors win
Comparison pages that only flatter the publisher are worth nothing to a buyer. Where a competing product has a capability we do not, a broader regulatory portfolio, or a larger install base, the table says so in the same voice it uses for everything else.
We do not invent numbers, quotes or reviews
There are no fabricated testimonials, no invented customer counts and no made-up accuracy percentages anywhere on this site. If we cannot source a figure, the page says the figure is not published rather than estimating one.
Comparisons are neutral about products we do not sell
Several pages here compare two other vendors to each other, with our own product absent from the table entirely. Those pages exist because the comparison is genuinely useful, and putting ourselves in every matrix would make all of them less trustworthy.
We correct things in place
When a figure turns out to be stale or wrong, we fix it on the page rather than quietly deleting it, and we move the compiled date forward so you can tell the page was rechecked. Email us if something here is out of date.
What you will find here
Research organized by the decision you are making
The pages on this site are grouped by the buying decision behind them rather than by product category, because a group replacing a reporting platform and a group choosing a first archive are answering completely different questions.
Prefer to start with the product instead? The how it works page walks through flagging, triage and drafting end to end, and the FAQ answers the accuracy, regulatory and PHI questions groups ask first.
Vendor comparisons
Neutral, sourced tables for the products US groups actually shortlist. Start at the alternatives hub, or go straight to the best AI radiology software roundup.
What things cost
Federal award data and Medicare fee schedules instead of vendor estimates, in radiology software pricing and radiology billing software.
Infrastructure choices
Which layer you are actually replacing, across PACS software, enterprise imaging and RIS software.
Reporting workflow
The reporting side, including reporting software compared and structured radiology reporting.
Fair questions about us
Questions buyers ask about who wrote this
Who is behind Radiological.ai?
Radiological.ai is an independent software company building an AI assistant for radiology reading workflows. It is not owned by an imaging services operator, a PACS vendor or a health system, which matters because several products in this market are. The company is pre-launch, so there is no customer list to publish and we do not pretend otherwise. Reach the team at [email protected].
Can I trust a vendor comparison written by a vendor?
Only if you can check it. That is why every table on this site names its sources and its compile date, and why the numbers come from public records you can look up yourself rather than from us. Read the tables, follow the sources, and discount anything we say about our own product. On several comparison pages we are not in the table at all.
Is Radiological.ai an FDA-cleared medical device?
We do not make FDA clearance claims for our product in our marketing, and nothing on this site should be read as one. The assistant is positioned as a workflow and decision-support tool for qualified clinicians. If regulatory status is a gating requirement for your group, raise it directly with us before any evaluation so nobody wastes time.
How often is the research updated?
Comparison and pricing pages carry a compiled date and get rechecked when something material changes: a vendor acquisition, an end-of-life announcement, a new fee schedule year or a new clearance. Ownership in this market has moved fast recently, so the date on a page matters as much as the content. When we find an error we fix the page and move the date forward.
Do you accept payment for placement in a comparison?
No. No vendor pays to appear, to rank higher, or to have a row removed from a table on this site, and there are no affiliate arrangements behind any comparison here. The obvious bias to watch for is the one you already know about: we sell a competing product. Everything else on the page is sourced so you can verify it independently.
Want the assistant in your reading workflow?
Get started and we will reach out to scope your group: the modalities you read, your report templates and how your worklist is ordered today. Decision support, not a diagnosis. You review, edit and sign every study.
Questions about the research rather than the product? Email [email protected] or use the contact form.