ScreenPoint Transpara vs Viz.ai
Transpara has eight FDA 510(k)s, the newest K260898 from August 2026, and ScreenPoint says it was the AI in the MASAI trial, which Lund University ran and the Lancet journals published. The vendor reports sensitivity of 80.5% against 73.8% for standard double reading, at 98.5% specificity over 105,000 women. A breast screening program reading 2D and 3D mammograms is who it serves. Viz.ai answers a different call, a large vessel occlusion alert pushed to the on-call team's mobile app, and a stroke network that transfers patients between hospitals is the customer. A screening program and a stroke network never end up on the same shortlist, so neither tool takes a buyer from the other. ContaCT, the LVO software, was authorized through a De Novo on February 13, 2018 as radiological computer-assisted triage and notification on CTA. A meta-analysis of 12 studies and 15,595 patients found shorter door-to-groin and door-in-door-out times and no significant difference in clinical outcomes. Viz.ai says it is embedded in 2,000 hospitals.
Radiology · Reviewed November 2, 2026

ScreenPoint Transpara
by ScreenPoint Medical
Transpara Breast AI: cancer detection support, density and risk tools for 2D and 3D mammograms.

Viz.ai
by Viz.ai · founded 2016
Care coordination platform with FDA-cleared imaging AI for stroke, vascular and cardiac conditions.
When to pick each one
ScreenPoint Transpara
- 2D and 3D mammography screening reads
- Eight FDA 510(k)s, newest August 2026
- MASAI trial in Lancet journals, per vendor
Viz.ai
- Large vessel occlusion alerts under 2018 De Novo
- SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 listed
- Meta-analysis shows faster door-to-groin times
Score
Each row shows points earned of points available under the published rubric.
ScreenPoint Transpara
56of 100
Viz.ai
89of 100
| Dimension | ScreenPoint Transpara | Viz.ai | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA clearance | 18 / 18 | 18 / 18 | 0 |
| HIPAA / SOC2 / BAA | 0 / 10 | 10 / 10 | -10 |
| EHR integrations (count) | 0 / 4.2 | 0 / 4.2 | 0 |
| Top-3 EHR coverage (Epic / Oracle / Athena) | 0 / 2.4 | 0 / 2.4 | 0 |
| Peer-reviewed papers | 12.7 / 18.2 | 18.2 / 18.2 | -5.5 |
| RCT / meta-analysis / systematic review | 7.8 / 7.8 | 7.8 / 7.8 | 0 |
| Funding & adoption signal | 6 / 12 | 12 / 12 | -6 |
| Pricing transparency | 2.5 / 5 | 2.5 / 5 | 0 |
| Years in market | 0 / 6 | 6 / 6 | -6 |
Scroll horizontally to see every column.
Pricing
ScreenPoint Transpara
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | n/a | n/a | No public price. Virtual demo and contact only. |
Viz.ai
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | n/a | n/a | No public price. Sold to health systems after a demo request. |
Evidence
ScreenPoint Transpara
FDA decisions
K260898 (opens in new tab)510(k)2026-08-14
Transpara (2.1.0)
K241831 (opens in new tab)510(k)2024-11-25
Transpara (2.1.0)
K232096 (opens in new tab)510(k)2023-12-11
Transpara Density 1.0.0
K221347 (opens in new tab)510(k)2022-08-03
Transpara 1.7.2
K210404 (opens in new tab)510(k)2021-06-02
Transpara 1.7.0
Show 3 more
K193229 (opens in new tab)510(k)2020-03-05
Transpara
K192287 (opens in new tab)510(k)2019-12-10
Transpara
K181704 (opens in new tab)510(k)2018-11-21
Transpara
Peer-reviewed
3 PubMed records name ScreenPoint Transpara.
- Interval cancer, sensitivity, and specificity comparing AI-supported mammography screening with standard double reading without AI in the MASAI study: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, population-based, screening-accuracy trial. (opens in new tab)
- Screening performance and characteristics of breast cancer detected in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a randomised, controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study. (opens in new tab)
- Artificial intelligence-supported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study. (opens in new tab)
Viz.ai
FDA decisions
K250354 (opens in new tab)510(k)2025-06-10
Viz Subdural+
K232363 (opens in new tab)510(k)2024-02-05
Viz HDS, Viz Volume Plus, Viz ICH+
DEN230003 (opens in new tab)De Novo2023-08-03
Viz HCM
K223443 (opens in new tab)510(k)2023-03-17
Viz AAA
K223042 (opens in new tab)510(k)2022-10-21
Viz LVO (ContaCT)
Show 7 more
K221100 (opens in new tab)510(k)2022-08-29
Viz RV/LV
K220439 (opens in new tab)510(k)2022-07-25
Viz SDH
K213319 (opens in new tab)510(k)2022-02-18
Viz ANEURYSM
K210209 (opens in new tab)510(k)2021-03-23
Viz ICH
K193658 (opens in new tab)510(k)2020-03-18
Viz ICH
K180161 (opens in new tab)510(k)2018-04-20
Viz CTP
DEN170073 (opens in new tab)De Novo2018-02-13
ContaCT
Peer-reviewed
5 PubMed records name Viz.ai.
- Automated Emergent Large Vessel Occlusion Detection Using Viz.ai Software and Its Impact on Stroke Workflow Metrics and Patient Outcomes in Stroke Centers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. (opens in new tab)
- Revolutionizing Intracranial Hemorrhage Diagnosis: A Retrospective Analytical Study of Viz.ai ICH for Enhanced Diagnostic Accuracy. (opens in new tab)
- Real-world evaluation of the accuracy of the Viz.AI automated intracranial hemorrhage volume calculation tool. (opens in new tab)
Compliance and integrations
Documented from each vendor’s own pages.
| Spec | ScreenPoint Transpara | Viz.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | ||
| HIPAA | ||
| SOC 2 Type II | ||
| EHR integrations | Not specified | Not specified |
| Founded | n/a | 2016 |
| HQ | NL | US |
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.
