MedAI Verdict
All comparisons

Etiometry Platform vs PERISCOPE

Etiometry sells physiologic risk indices to critical care programs. The platform has 11 FDA 510(k) records, from March 2015 to April 2026, and K254066 in April 2026 is a Cardiogenic Shock Tool. The vendor also states a CE Mark under EU MDR. None of its four indices scores infection risk, so the two products serve different units.

A surgical department that wants 7-day and 30-day postoperative infection risk from EHR data would evaluate PERISCOPE. The vendor states a Class IIa CE mark under EU MDR and claims no FDA status, and funding coverage names FDA clearance as a goal. Deventer Ziekenhuis and Amsterdam UMC supply testimonials on its homepage. The Lancet Regional Health Europe study covered 253,010 procedures in Dutch and Belgian hospitals, with 30-day AUROC of 0.82 to 0.91 on 2022-2023 temporal validation after updating. It was retrospective, and two authors work at Healthplus.ai.

Decision support · Reviewed November 2, 2026

Etiometry Platform logo

Etiometry Platform

by Etiometry · founded 2010

ICU data platform that aggregates monitor and EHR data and runs four FDA-cleared physiologic risk indices.

PERISCOPE logo

PERISCOPE

by Healthplus.ai

PERISCOPE predicts postoperative bacterial infection risk 7 and 30 days after surgery from EHR data.

When to pick each one

Etiometry Platform

  • Eleven FDA 510(k) records, newest April 2026
  • Vendor states CE Mark under EU MDR
  • Cardiogenic Shock Tool among its cleared records
Read the full Etiometry Platform review

PERISCOPE

  • Vendor states Class IIa CE mark, ISO 13485, ISO 27001
  • 7-day and 30-day postoperative infection risk
  • Lancet Regional Health Europe study, 253,010 procedures
Read the full PERISCOPE review

Score

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

Etiometry Platform

38of 100

Competitive

PERISCOPE

15of 100

Tracked
Score by dimension for Etiometry Platform and PERISCOPE
DimensionEtiometry PlatformPERISCOPEDifference
FDA clearance12 / 120 / 12+12
HIPAA / SOC2 / BAA10 / 100 / 10+10
EHR integrations (count)0 / 5.60 / 5.60
Top-3 EHR coverage (Epic / Oracle / Athena)0 / 4.80 / 4.80
Bidirectional write-back0 / 1.20 / 1.20
Peer-reviewed papers0 / 218.4 / 21-8.4
RCT / meta-analysis / systematic review0 / 90 / 90
Funding & adoption signal3 / 123 / 120
Pricing transparency1.3 / 2.51.3 / 2.50
Years in market6 / 60 / 6+6

Scroll horizontally to see every column.

How scores are computed

Pricing

Etiometry Platform

TierMonthlyAnnualNotes
Enterprisen/an/aNo public price. Demo request only.

PERISCOPE

TierMonthlyAnnualNotes
Enterprisen/an/aNo public price.

Evidence

Etiometry Platform

FDA decisions

Show 6 more

Compliance and integrations

Documented from each vendor’s own pages.

SpecEtiometry PlatformPERISCOPE
Free tierNo / unverifiedNo / unverified
HIPAAYesNo / unverified
SOC 2 Type IIYesNo / unverified
EHR integrationsNot specifiedNot specified
Founded2010n/a
HQUSNL

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.