Etiometry Platform vs Navina
Etiometry describes itself as a clinical intelligence platform for critical care clinicians, and names no other audience. A primary care or value-based group would not evaluate it. The vendor says Etiometry complies with the SOC 2 and HIPAA Trust Services Criteria, signs BAAs and holds ISO 27001 certification. Its data governance page names SMART-on-FHIR integration and no individual EHR.
Navina fits a primary care or value-based group that wants chart review, HCC risk-adjustment suggestions and care-gap closure inside athenahealth, Epic or Veradigm. Excerpted KLAS comments, all unrated, describe a per-member-per-month fee on the attributed population with extra fees for some modules. In them a director says support overpromises and underdelivers, and a vice president says Navina does a really good job on risk adjustment but is primarily focused on Medicare. The vendor cites the number one spot in the 2025 Best in KLAS clinician digital workflow category and shows HIPAA, SOC 2 and ISO 27001 badges.
Decision support · Reviewed November 2, 2026

Etiometry Platform
by Etiometry · founded 2010
ICU data platform that aggregates monitor and EHR data and runs four FDA-cleared physiologic risk indices.

Navina
by Navina · founded 2018
AI copilot for chart review, risk adjustment and care gaps in primary care and value-based care groups.
When to pick each one
Etiometry Platform
- Vendor describes it as built for critical care clinicians
- Vendor states BAAs and ISO 27001
- SMART-on-FHIR integration, no EHR named
Navina
- athenahealth, Epic and Veradigm named
- Chart review, HCC suggestions and care gaps
- KLAS comments describe per-member-per-month pricing
Score
Each row shows points earned of points available under the published rubric.
Etiometry Platform
38of 100
Navina
36of 100
| Dimension | Etiometry Platform | Navina | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA clearance | 12 / 12 | 0 / 12 | +12 |
| HIPAA / SOC2 / BAA | 10 / 10 | 10 / 10 | 0 |
| EHR integrations (count) | 0 / 5.6 | 1.7 / 5.6 | -1.7 |
| Top-3 EHR coverage (Epic / Oracle / Athena) | 0 / 4.8 | 3.4 / 4.8 | -3.4 |
| Bidirectional write-back | 0 / 1.2 | 0 / 1.2 | 0 |
| Peer-reviewed papers | 0 / 21 | 0 / 21 | 0 |
| RCT / meta-analysis / systematic review | 0 / 9 | 0 / 9 | 0 |
| Funding & adoption signal | 3 / 12 | 8.4 / 12 | -5.4 |
| Pricing transparency | 1.3 / 2.5 | 1.3 / 2.5 | 0 |
| Years in market | 6 / 6 | 6 / 6 | 0 |
Scroll horizontally to see every column.
Pricing
Etiometry Platform
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | n/a | n/a | No public price. Demo request only. |
Navina
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | n/a | n/a | No public price. |
Evidence
Etiometry Platform
FDA decisions
K254066 (opens in new tab)510(k)2026-04-03
Etiometry Platform
K241479 (opens in new tab)510(k)2025-02-12
Etiometry Platform (DAV 5.4 RAE 9.2)
K223578 (opens in new tab)510(k)2023-07-07
T3 Platform software
K213423 (opens in new tab)510(k)2023-01-06
T3 Platform software
K213230 (opens in new tab)510(k)2022-06-22
T3 Platform Software
Show 6 more
K202306 (opens in new tab)510(k)2020-11-25
T3 Platform software
K190273 (opens in new tab)510(k)2019-12-08
T3 Platform software
K163065 (opens in new tab)510(k)2017-05-26
T3 Software
K152258 (opens in new tab)510(k)2016-03-31
T3 Software
K151715 (opens in new tab)510(k)2015-10-29
T3 Software
K142732 (opens in new tab)510(k)2015-03-04
T3 Software
Navina
FDA decisions
No FDA decision cited in our research as of November 2, 2026.
Compliance and integrations
Documented from each vendor’s own pages.
| Spec | Etiometry Platform | Navina |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | ||
| HIPAA | ||
| SOC 2 Type II | ||
| EHR integrations | Not specified | athenahealth, Epic, Veradigm |
| Founded | 2010 | 2018 |
| HQ | US | n/a |
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.
