MedAI Verdict
All comparisons

Gleamer vs Infervision

Chest imaging is the overlap, split by modality. Gleamer's ChestView reads chest X-ray for pneumothorax, consolidation, nodule, mediastinal mass and pleural effusion, and openFDA lists ChestView US as K241620 (February 2025) and K252486 (September 2026). Infervision's openFDA records under its three applicant names include InferRead Lung CT.AI for nodule detection (K192880, July 2020, and K240554, May 2025), CT Stroke.AI (K211179), InferOperate Suite and InferCare RECIST. Infervision lists InferRead DR Chest for chest X-ray, and that product has no record among them. Gleamer lists LungCT for CT nodules, and no record for it appears under Gleamer's applicant names, so its US status is not established.

A 2025 PLOS Global Public Health evaluation by independent academic authors tested InferRead DR Chest for TB screening in Lusaka, Zambia, and reported 90.3% sensitivity and 39.2% specificity at a 0.12 cut-off.

For a US radiology group buying chest X-ray AI, Infervision trails Gleamer, since ChestView has two chest X-ray records and DR Chest has none. A group reading lung nodules on CT gets the opposite answer, since InferRead Lung CT.AI has two records and Gleamer's LungCT US status is not established.

Radiology · Reviewed November 2, 2026

Gleamer logo

Gleamer

by Gleamer SAS

Radiology AI for fracture and chest X-ray findings, plus CT, MRI and mammography; part of RadNet DeepHealth since March 2026.

Infervision logo

Infervision

by Infervision · founded 2016

AI for CT lung nodules, CT stroke, surgical planning and RECIST follow-up, with FDA clearances for these CT products.

When to pick each one

Gleamer

  • ChestView X-ray AI, K241620 and K252486
  • Pneumothorax, consolidation, nodule, effusion on chest X-ray
  • Shadow Mode lets readers accept or reject AI results
Read the full Gleamer review

Infervision

  • InferRead Lung CT.AI nodule detection, K192880 and K240554
  • InferRead DR Chest evaluated for TB screening in Zambia
  • Offices in London, Wiesbaden and New Jersey
Read the full Infervision review

Score

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

Gleamer

56of 100

Solid choice

Infervision

57of 100

Solid choice
Score by dimension for Gleamer and Infervision
DimensionGleamerInfervisionDifference
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 papers18.2 / 18.212.7 / 18.2+5.5
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 / 66 / 6-6

Scroll horizontally to see every column.

How scores are computed

Pricing

Gleamer

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

Infervision

TierMonthlyAnnualNotes
Enterprisen/an/aNo public price.

Evidence

Compliance and integrations

Documented from each vendor’s own pages.

SpecGleamerInfervision
Free tierNo / unverifiedNo / unverified
HIPAANo / unverifiedNo / unverified
SOC 2 Type IINo / unverifiedNo / unverified
EHR integrationsNot specifiedNot specified
Foundedn/a2016
HQFRn/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.