eCART vs VisualDx
The vendor states no FDA clearance for VisualDx. A 2020 DermExpert FAQ says it is not FDA approved and that VisualDx is exempt from FDA regulation. AgileMD's eCART holds K233253. VisualDx publishes prices: Core is $249.99 per year for education and Elite is $299.99 per year for clinicians, both billed annually, with contact-for-pricing for groups of two to five and for enterprise. The vendor says it carries 50,000+ clinical images across skin tones and body sites. Its history page cites HL7 infobutton and SMART on FHIR work in 2012, and its homepage promises EHR integration without naming an EHR. Hospital ward teams are the audience for eCART. VisualDx counts individual clinicians and hospitals among its stated audiences, and a physician working through a rash differential is the clearest fit for its differential builder and skin-image library.
Decision support · Reviewed November 2, 2026
When to pick each one
eCART
- Holds FDA 510(k) clearance for ward scoring
- Vendor describes SOC 2 and HIPAA compliance
VisualDx
- Elite plan at $299.99 per year
- Vendor says 50,000+ clinical images across skin tones
- Cited HL7 infobutton and SMART on FHIR work in 2012
Score
Each row shows points earned of points available under the published rubric.
eCART
56of 100
VisualDx
48of 100
| Dimension | eCART | VisualDx | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA clearance | 12 / 12 | 0 / 12 | +12 |
| HIPAA / SOC2 / BAA | 10 / 10 | 0 / 10 | +10 |
| EHR integrations (count) | 0 / 5.6 | 0 / 5.6 | 0 |
| Top-3 EHR coverage (Epic / Oracle / Athena) | 0 / 4.8 | 0 / 4.8 | 0 |
| Bidirectional write-back | 0 / 1.2 | 0 / 1.2 | 0 |
| Peer-reviewed papers | 21 / 21 | 14.7 / 21 | +6.3 |
| RCT / meta-analysis / systematic review | 0 / 9 | 9 / 9 | -9 |
| Funding & adoption signal | 3 / 12 | 8.4 / 12 | -5.4 |
| Pricing transparency | 1.3 / 2.5 | 2.5 / 2.5 | -1.2 |
| Years in market | 0 / 6 | 6 / 6 | -6 |
Scroll horizontally to see every column.
Pricing
eCART
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | n/a | n/a | No public price. There is no pricing page; the site offers a demo request only. |
VisualDx
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core (education) | n/a | $249.99 | Shown as $39.99 or $20.83 per month, billed annually. Free trial length is not stated. Annual plans that auto-renew have a 30-day grace period for a full refund of the renewed fee. |
| Elite (clinicians) | n/a | $299.99 | Shown as $49.99 or $24.99 per month, billed annually. |
| Groups and Enterprise | n/a | n/a | Contact for pricing, including small groups of 2 to 5 users. |
Evidence
eCART
FDA decisions
K233253 (opens in new tab)510(k)2024-06-21
eCARTv5 Clinical Deterioration Suite (eCART)
Peer-reviewed
5 PubMed records name eCART.
- Early Warning Scores With and Without Artificial Intelligence. (opens in new tab)
- Multicenter Development and Prospective Validation of eCARTv5: A Gradient Boosted Machine Learning Early Warning Score. (opens in new tab)
- DETERIO-LLM: enhancing traditional deterioration risk scores with clinical context and advanced reasoning. (opens in new tab)
VisualDx
FDA decisions
No FDA decision cited in our research as of October 20, 2026.
Peer-reviewed
4 PubMed records name VisualDx.
- Early Perspectives on Utilization of a Clinical Decision Support Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study. (opens in new tab)
- Experiences, challenges and lessons while implementing a clinical decision support system in Botswana. (opens in new tab)
- Racial disparities in skin tone representation of dermatomyositis rashes: a systematic review. (opens in new tab)
Compliance and integrations
Documented from each vendor’s own pages.
| Spec | eCART | VisualDx |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | ||
| HIPAA | ||
| SOC 2 Type II | ||
| EHR integrations | Not specified | Not specified |
| Founded | n/a | 1999 |
| HQ | US | US |
Scroll horizontally to see both columns.
Common questions
Open the full decision support comparison
Differential diagnosis, treatment guidance, drug interactions, evidence-grounded Q&A. The CDS landscape ranges from the UpToDate gold standard to physician-only OpenEvidence. We compared what clinicians actually use.