MedAI Verdict
All comparisons

Harrison.ai vs Nanox.AI

The vendor positions Nanox.AI as reading CT scans acquired for other reasons. Its AI page lists three solutions, HealthCCSng for coronary calcium, HealthOST for vertebral height loss and bone density, and HealthFLD for liver fat, and links a US reimbursement demo. A 2025 Diagnostics validation of HealthOST on outpatient chest and abdomen CT reported 92.0% sensitivity at the 20% height-loss threshold, with the abstract's specificity figure starting at 52.7%. A health system running opportunistic CT screening, such as coronary calcium from lung-screening scans, buys Nanox. Harrison.ai reads acute studies, with vendor figures of up to 130 findings on head CT in under 90 seconds and up to 124 on chest X-ray in under 20, and an emergency radiology service triaging head CT and chest X-ray buys it. A Scottish Health Technologies Group summary of an NHS Grampian evaluation of its chest X-ray product gave 78% sensitivity, 91% specificity, 99.99% NPV and 3% PPV. Nanox's AI page lists no head CT or chest X-ray product, so the two sell to different services.

Radiology · Reviewed November 2, 2026

Harrison.ai logo

Harrison.ai

by Harrison.ai

Imaging AI for chest X-ray, head CT and chest CT, with up to 130 findings on head CT (vendor figure).

Nanox.AI logo

Nanox.AI

by Nano-X Imaging

CT AI for opportunistic screening: coronary calcium, vertebral fractures and liver fat on routine CT scans, for radiology departments.

When to pick each one

Harrison.ai

  • Head CT and chest X-ray reading for acute care
  • NHS deployments on Sectra and Philips PACS, per RCR registry
Read the full Harrison.ai review

Nanox.AI

  • Coronary calcium, bone and liver fat on routine CT
  • US reimbursement demo offered
  • HealthOST validation, 92.0% sensitivity, specificity from 52.7%
Read the full Nanox.AI review

Score

Each row shows points earned of points available under the published rubric.

Harrison.ai

35of 100

Competitive

Nanox.AI

35of 100

Competitive
Score by dimension for Harrison.ai and Nanox.AI
DimensionHarrison.aiNanox.AIDifference
FDA clearance18 / 1818 / 180
HIPAA / SOC2 / BAA0 / 100 / 100
EHR integrations (count)0 / 4.20 / 4.20
Top-3 EHR coverage (Epic / Oracle / Athena)0 / 2.40 / 2.40
Peer-reviewed papers0 / 18.20 / 18.20
RCT / meta-analysis / systematic review0 / 7.80 / 7.80
Funding & adoption signal8.4 / 128.4 / 120
Pricing transparency2.5 / 52.5 / 50
Years in market0 / 60 / 60

Scroll horizontally to see every column.

How scores are computed

Pricing

Harrison.ai

TierMonthlyAnnualNotes
Enterprisen/an/aNo public price. Book a demo.

Nanox.AI

TierMonthlyAnnualNotes
Enterprisen/an/aNo public price.

Evidence

Harrison.ai

FDA decisions

Show 4 more

Nanox.AI

FDA decisions

Show 7 more

Compliance and integrations

Documented from each vendor’s own pages.

SpecHarrison.aiNanox.AI
Free tierNo / unverifiedNo / unverified
HIPAANo / unverifiedNo / unverified
SOC 2 Type IINo / unverifiedNo / unverified
EHR integrationsNot specifiedNot specified
Foundedn/an/a
HQAUn/a

Scroll horizontally to see both columns.

Common questions

Open the full radiology comparison

Acute-care triage, mammography screening, CCTA plaque analysis, mobile MRI. 30+ FDA-cleared platforms across stroke, oncology, cardiac. Enterprise sales only — we compared what's deployed where.