What are the most valuable clinical decision support startups?

Top startups in the clinical decision support market ranked by valuation

Here is an updated table that ranks the top startups in the clinical decision support market based on their latest reported or estimated valuations.

If you need to dig deeper and get more detailed data, please check our report covering the clinical decision support market.

1. Total funding is a minimum: some rounds have no public amount.
2. Acquisition values: CathWorks excludes earn-outs; Gleamer includes contingent payments.

Which clinical decision support startups are worth the most today?

OpenEvidence is currently the most valuable clinical decision support startup, valued at $15.0B, well ahead of Aidoc at $1.0B–$1.9B and AMBOSS at $800M–$1.9B.

The gap is enormous. OpenEvidence's $15.0B valuation is more than seven times AMBOSS's highest estimate. The distance has grown quickly, too. OpenEvidence completed a $250 million funding round at a reported $15 billion valuation in September 2026, just eight months after reaching $12 billion.

These companies have very different business models. OpenEvidence gives doctors free access to AI-powered medical research and earns revenue from advertising. AMBOSS has built a medical knowledge business around education, clinical reference materials and professional subscriptions. Aidoc sells diagnostic AI and workflow software directly to hospitals.

Below OpenEvidence, Aidoc and AMBOSS, Viz.ai ($1.2B), Cleerly ($700M–$1.3B), AliveCor ($944M), DentalMonitoring ($667M–$1.2B), Glooko ($667M–$1.2B) and Anumana ($636M–$1.2B) form the next group. Their products cover medical imaging, cardiovascular diagnostics, diabetes management and specialized clinical workflows. DentalMonitoring and Glooko share the same range because both are estimated from recent funding rounds of similar size.

There is a striking difference between the general medical knowledge platforms at the top and the more specialized diagnostic businesses below them. OpenEvidence has managed to build a very large physician audience, while most of its competitors are still focused on particular clinical specialties or hospital applications.

How many clinical decision support startups are worth over $1 billion?

In our ranking, 3 clinical decision support startups have valuation ranges starting at $1 billion or more, while another five have ranges extending beyond that threshold.

OpenEvidence, Aidoc and Viz.ai make up the first group. AMBOSS, Cleerly, DentalMonitoring, Glooko and Anumana have ranges that cross the billion-dollar threshold, although their lower estimates fall below it.

DentalMonitoring stays in this group with a range estimated from its February 2026 round, since its reported $1 billion price from 2021 is now more than five years old. Shukun Technology has left it: its last published price, about $1.5 billion in 2021, is also more than five years old and no round with a price has followed, so it is listed without a rank at the end of the table.

That gives us eight companies with valuations reaching at least $1 billion, out of 82 in the ranking. In percentage terms, that's approximately 10% of the companies ranked.

There is an important difference between a company with a valuation range of $900M–$1.5B and one that has recently completed financing at a disclosed billion-dollar valuation. Both may reach the same headline number, but the underlying financial circumstances are quite different.

The rest of the market is much more concentrated in smaller valuation ranges. Companies such as Deepwise ($463M–$869M), ArteraAI ($360M–$900M) and RapidAI ($200M–$520M) have attracted serious investment without reaching the financial scale of the leading group.

Clinical decision support has produced several unicorns, but billion-dollar valuations remain relatively uncommon across the sector.

Why is OpenEvidence worth so much more than other clinical AI startups?

OpenEvidence is valued far above other clinical AI startups because physician adoption and revenue have grown at a pace rarely seen in healthcare software.

Sacra estimates that OpenEvidence increased annualized revenue from $7.9 million at the end of 2024 to $150 million at the end of 2025, then reached approximately $300 million by July 2026. That's roughly 38 times its late-2024 revenue run rate in around nineteen months.

The audience has grown just as quickly. Financial Times reporting in October 2026 indicated that nearly two-thirds of U.S. doctors were using OpenEvidence, with more than 42 million prompts submitted in a recent month. Those are extraordinary usage figures for a professional medical application.

The business model helps explain the growth. Physicians get free access to research assistance, while pharmaceutical and medical-device companies pay to reach a verified medical audience. OpenEvidence can expand without waiting for every hospital or physician to sign a subscription contract.

The September 2026 funding round valued OpenEvidence at $15 billion, equivalent to approximately 50 times its estimated $300 million annualized revenue. That's an exceptionally demanding multiple, although the company also benefits from rapid growth and reported gross margins around 90%.

There is a clear risk. OpenEvidence relies heavily on advertising economics, and competitors are increasingly offering medical AI tools directly to physicians. Its valuation assumes that the company can keep expanding its audience and advertising revenue without losing doctors' trust.

Can AMBOSS catch up with OpenEvidence?

AMBOSS can compete seriously with OpenEvidence in clinical knowledge searches, but catching up financially looks difficult given their current valuation gap.

AMBOSS is valued at $800M–$1.9B, compared with OpenEvidence's $15.0B. The German company has a different background: it built its reputation through medical education, examination preparation and structured clinical reference content before expanding further into AI assistance.

In March 2025, AMBOSS announced a €240 million financing round backed by investors including KIRKBI, M&G Investments and Lightrock. It subsequently introduced AI Mode for clinical search in November 2025 and expanded its medical AI products during 2026.

AMBOSS has also reported strong results in clinical AI evaluations, including a July 2026 comparison in which it ranked ahead of several competing medical AI products. Those results are worth considering, although company-reported benchmark rankings don't establish overall product superiority.

OpenEvidence has the stronger recent commercial growth figures. AMBOSS, meanwhile, has established educational relationships with physicians and medical students, alongside subscription-based products.

The biggest question is whether doctors ultimately prefer a free AI search tool or a more structured medical knowledge platform. Both can have a place in clinical practice, but OpenEvidence has already demonstrated considerably greater financial scale.

Why are medical imaging AI startups getting such high valuations?

Medical imaging AI startups attract some of the largest clinical decision support valuations because their products can be used directly in diagnostic workflows that hospitals already pay for.

Aidoc ($1.0B–$1.9B), Cleerly ($700M–$1.3B), Deepwise ($463M–$869M) and Qure.ai ($350M–$700M) illustrate how much investors value AI tools that interpret scans or help clinicians identify diseases.

A hospital performing thousands of CT scans or X-rays has a practical reason to buy software that can prioritize urgent cases, assist interpretation or reduce radiologists' workloads. These are established clinical activities with measurable costs and operational requirements.

Aidoc provides a good example of how this business can expand. Its April 2026 $150 million Series E financing, led by Goldman Sachs Alternatives, followed another major financing announcement in July 2025. The company is developing its aiOS enterprise platform alongside clinical foundation models intended to support more medical applications.

Cleerly is following a more specialized route. Its coronary plaque analysis software received broader reimbursement coverage when Aetna joined other insurers in January 2026, bringing the potential covered population for the relevant technology to more than 86 million people.

Commercialization can still be slow. Hospitals must assess clinical performance, integrate software with existing systems and often obtain reimbursement or budget approval. Established hospital relationships are therefore particularly valuable in this market.

Is Aidoc becoming the biggest clinical AI platform for hospitals?

Aidoc is one of the leading enterprise clinical AI contenders, although its $1.0B–$1.9B valuation alone cannot establish that it has the largest hospital customer base.

The company has moved well beyond its initial focus on detecting urgent findings in medical images. Its aiOS platform is designed to integrate multiple AI applications into hospital workflows, while its CARE foundation-model project aims to support a wider range of clinical imaging tasks.

Its financing history is revealing. Aidoc announced $150 million in financing in July 2025, including a $40 million revolving credit facility, followed by another $150 million Series E in April 2026. The company said the latter round brought cumulative financing above $500 million.

That level of investment suggests Aidoc is pursuing a broad enterprise platform rather than relying on one diagnostic application.

Other hospital-focused companies have their own strengths. Viz.ai ($1.2B, set in its last announced round) concentrates on disease detection and care coordination, while RapidAI ($200M–$520M) focuses on stroke and vascular diagnostics. Harrison.ai (~$521M) has expanded its radiology and pathology software internationally, supported by a $112 million financing round announced in February 2025.

Aidoc's range of applications makes it a strong candidate for a central role in hospital AI. But comparable figures on active hospital deployments, recurring revenue and customer retention would be needed to establish overall market leadership.

Are cardiovascular AI startups becoming the next big winners?

Cardiovascular AI is already one of the most valuable specialized areas of clinical decision support, with several companies attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and valuation.

Cleerly ($700M–$1.3B) and Keya Medical ($130M–$360M) focus on coronary imaging, while Anumana ($636M–$1.2B) develops AI-enabled ECG diagnostics. Elucid ($367M–$688M) analyzes cardiovascular plaque, and AliveCor ($944M, its last announced round valuation) combines ECG technology with AI-powered cardiac monitoring.

These companies address different parts of cardiovascular care. Some help detect abnormalities before invasive procedures; others support interpretation, risk assessment or ongoing monitoring.

Cleerly's reimbursement progress is particularly important. Its January 2026 announcement reported commercial insurance coverage arrangements reaching more than 86 million lives, alongside the introduction of a Category I CPT code for the relevant coronary plaque analysis technology.

There is also evidence of acquisition demand. Medtronic completed its $585 million acquisition of CathWorks in April 2026, four years after entering a commercial partnership with the company.

The variety of approaches gives cardiovascular AI several possible routes to growth. Coronary imaging, ECG analysis and procedure guidance each have different customers and payment models, so no single company is likely to capture the entire opportunity.

Does FDA clearance make a clinical AI startup more valuable?

FDA clearance can make clinical AI software much easier to sell, especially when it supports diagnosis, but clearance alone doesn't guarantee a high valuation.

Aidoc has built a large portfolio of FDA-cleared imaging applications, helping it develop relationships with hospitals and healthcare systems. Smaller companies such as Eyenuk ($70M–$155M), Digital Diagnostics ($170M–$400M) and ScreenPoint Medical ($120M–$220M) have pursued more specialized diagnostic applications.

Regulatory authorization creates a route to clinical use, but customers still need evidence that the software performs reliably and fits their workflows.

The FDA's January 2026 guidance also highlights an important distinction. Certain clinical decision support software functions may be excluded from medical-device regulation when they meet specific conditions. Other applications, particularly those performing regulated diagnostic functions, remain subject to device requirements.

A clinical research assistant and autonomous diagnostic software therefore cannot be compared simply by counting regulatory authorizations.

What makes authorization financially valuable is the business it enables. A cleared diagnostic product with reimbursement, repeat usage and hospital integration has a stronger commercial position than a cleared application with little real-world adoption.

Are doctors actually using clinical decision support AI?

Clinical decision support AI is becoming part of everyday medical practice, although doctors use it much more frequently for research and documentation than for direct diagnosis.

The American Medical Association's March 2026 survey found that 81% of physicians used AI professionally, up from 38% in 2023. That's a 43-percentage-point increase in three years.

The types of use are revealing. Research and clinical guideline summaries were used by 39% of respondents, documentation-related tasks were common, and 17% reported using AI for assistive diagnosis.

Physician AI usage	Share of respondents
Any professional AI use	81%
Medical research and guideline summaries	39%
Discharge instructions, care plans or progress notes	30%
Billing codes, medical charts or visit notes	28%
Chart summaries	28%
Draft patient portal responses	19%
Translation services	18%
Assistive diagnosis	17%

This helps explain why companies such as OpenEvidence and AMBOSS can build large physician audiences without replacing clinical judgment. Research assistance is already familiar to doctors, whereas diagnostic AI requires more careful evaluation.

The survey also found that 88% of physicians considered robust safety and efficacy validation important for broader adoption.

Patient outcomes remain a more difficult question. A Nature Medicine randomized trial published in June 2026 studied 9,691 patients across 16 Kenyan primary care facilities. AI assistance improved documentation and aspects of clinical reasoning, but treatment failure rates were 2.2% with AI assistance and 2.0% without it, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The evidence supports widespread adoption of clinical AI tools. There is considerably less proof so far that their use consistently improves patient outcomes. That's a distinction investors should keep in mind.

Which clinical decision support startups have raised the most funding?

OpenEvidence has attracted the most funding in our clinical decision support ranking, at $1 billion, followed by several imaging and diagnostics companies that have raised hundreds of millions.

Aidoc has raised $436 million, Cleerly $372 million, Caresyntax $302 million, DentalMonitoring $300 million and AMBOSS $260 million.

The financial differences are striking. OpenEvidence has raised more than twice as much as Aidoc, yet its valuation range is several times higher. Cleerly has also attracted substantial capital while focusing on a more specialized cardiovascular application.

Funding alone says surprisingly little about commercial success. Developing regulated diagnostic software can require years of research, clinical validation, regulatory work and hospital sales before revenue reaches a meaningful scale.

Ada Health provides an interesting example. It has raised at least $120 million against a current estimated valuation of $120M–$180M. The lower end of its valuation range is no higher than the capital it has raised, although funding totals and equity valuations measure different things. It doesn't automatically mean investors have lost money.

OpenEvidence's faster revenue growth shows why investors may reward a physician-facing software business differently from a company selling complex diagnostic infrastructure.

Are American startups dominating clinical decision support AI?

American startups dominate the highest clinical decision support valuations, but Europe and China have developed serious competitors, especially in imaging and specialized diagnostics.

OpenEvidence ($15.0B) and Viz.ai ($1.2B) are U.S.-based companies, while Aidoc ($1.0B–$1.9B) comes from Israel. Cleerly ($700M–$1.3B), Overjet ($550M) and Anumana ($636M–$1.2B) add further depth in cardiovascular and dental AI.

Germany has AMBOSS ($800M–$1.9B), France has DentalMonitoring ($667M–$1.2B), and China has Deepwise ($463M–$869M), Keya Medical ($130M–$360M) and Infervision ($160M–$500M).

China's presence is particularly strong in medical imaging. Beyond those three companies, Huimei Technology ($440M–$660M) covers hospital decision support. Shukun Technology, also Chinese, now sits without a rank at the end of the table because its last published price dates from 2021. VoxelCloud, with no current valuation in our data, has Chinese operations but is headquartered in Los Angeles.

European companies are more spread across clinical knowledge, imaging, diagnostics and monitoring. Denmark's Corti ($400M–$750M), Spain's Quibim ($250M–$417M) and the United Kingdom's Ultromics ($367M–$688M) demonstrate the range.

The United States has the largest concentration of high-value companies, helped by its healthcare spending, venture funding and hospital technology market. China has built a strong imaging cluster, while European companies compete across several niches.

Is AI pathology becoming a major acquisition target?

AI pathology has become an important acquisition target, with Roche and Agilent announcing deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars in 2026.

Roche announced its agreement to acquire PathAI in May 2026 for $750 million upfront, plus up to $300 million in milestones. PathAI's transaction-based valuation is $750M, with closing pending.

Agilent followed in October 2026 with an agreement to acquire Proscia for $240 million at closing, plus up to $30 million in additional performance payments. Proscia's valuation is $240M, also reflecting a transaction awaiting closing.

The buyers have related but distinct goals. Roche wants to strengthen pathology image analysis and companion diagnostics, building on an existing PathAI partnership dating back to 2021. Agilent wants to add digital pathology software to its established instruments, reagents and diagnostics business.

The wider sector includes Ibex Medical Analytics ($180M–$380M), Aignostics ($145M–$250M) and Deciphex ($150M–$260M), each working on AI-powered pathology analysis.

Two major acquisition agreements in roughly five months are a notable development for a specialized healthcare software category. Established diagnostics companies are willing to buy digital pathology capabilities rather than build everything internally.

What are the biggest clinical decision support startup acquisitions?

CathWorks and Gleamer are among the largest completed clinical decision support acquisitions in our ranking, at $585 million and $264 million respectively, while PathAI and Proscia have announced additional transactions that remain pending.

Medtronic completed its acquisition of CathWorks in April 2026. The deal followed a commercial partnership established in 2022 and focused on CathWorks' FFRangio technology for coronary physiology assessment.

RadNet completed its Gleamer acquisition in March 2026. According to its SEC filing, total purchase consideration was approximately $264.1 million, including contingent consideration.

Gleamer is particularly interesting because RadNet disclosed meaningful commercial figures. The company had more than 700 customer contracts across 44 countries, and its annual recurring revenue grew at a compound annual rate above 90% between 2022 and 2025. RadNet expected approximately $30 million in ARR during 2026.

At $264 million, that puts Gleamer's acquisition value at roughly nine times expected 2026 ARR. It's one of the more useful observable transaction benchmarks for clinical imaging AI businesses.

PathAI and Proscia show that pathology software can also attract strategic buyers, although their acquisition agreements should not be treated as completed transactions.

Company	Buyer	Transaction status	Strategic reason
CathWorks	Medtronic	Completed April 2026	Coronary physiology assessment
Gleamer	RadNet	Completed March 2026	Radiology interpretation software
Visiopharm	-	Acquired	Digital pathology analysis
PathAI	Roche	Announced, closing pending	Pathology AI and companion diagnostics
Proscia	Agilent	Announced, closing pending	Enterprise pathology software

Are clinical AI companies being acquired for less than investors expected?

Some clinical AI acquisition prices look relatively modest compared with the capital these businesses have raised, but completed deals show that buyers are still paying meaningful premiums for commercial technology.

CathWorks raised $150.8 million and was acquired for $585 million. Gleamer's $264 million acquisition value compares with approximately $40 million in funding.

The announced transactions offer two more examples. PathAI raised at least $236 million and agreed to a $750M transaction. Proscia raised approximately $129 million and agreed to a $240M transaction.

These comparisons show acquisition values above cumulative funding, but they don't tell us how much individual investors earned. Investors entered at different prices, ownership was diluted over successive rounds, and some transaction payments depend on future performance.

One notable pattern is that acquirers already had a clear reason to own these technologies. Medtronic had worked with CathWorks since 2022, Roche had collaborated with PathAI since 2021, and Agilent wanted software that could complement its pathology hardware and reagents.

The acquisition market looks active for companies that fit established healthcare businesses. That's a more useful conclusion than assuming every well-funded clinical AI startup will eventually receive a premium buyout.

Can smaller clinical decision support startups reach $1 billion?

Several clinical decision support startups could reach billion-dollar valuations, with Overjet, Harrison.ai and ArteraAI offering different routes towards that level.

Overjet is valued at $550M and sells AI-powered dental diagnostics and analytics. In March 2024, it announced a $53.2 million Series C at a disclosed $550 million valuation. Its current valuation reflects a business positioned across dental practices, insurers and clinical decision support.

Harrison.ai (~$521M) raised $112 million in February 2025 to support international expansion of its radiology and pathology technology. Its opportunity depends partly on selling diagnostic software across multiple countries and clinical specialties.

ArteraAI ($360M–$900M) approaches clinical AI through precision oncology, where broader clinical adoption and reimbursement could support further growth.

Other companies, including Navina ($367M–$688M), AI Medical Service ($140M–$310M) and Elucid ($367M–$688M), have already reached substantial estimated valuations.

The path to $1 billion differs between them. Overjet can expand across dental providers and payers, Harrison.ai can increase international diagnostic deployments, and ArteraAI can broaden its role in cancer treatment decisions.

None is a guaranteed future unicorn. The strongest signs of progress will be sustained revenue growth, expanding customer usage and clinical applications that generate repeat payments.

Could ChatGPT and other general-purpose AI tools hurt clinical decision support startups?

General-purpose AI is becoming a serious competitive threat to clinical knowledge startups such as OpenEvidence and AMBOSS, particularly as medical research search becomes easier and cheaper.

OpenEvidence's rapid growth has attracted direct competition. OpenAI expanded its healthcare offering in 2026, including tools for healthcare organizations and clinicians. Other established medical information providers have also introduced AI-powered search products.

Clinical research assistance is particularly exposed because much of the underlying work involves retrieving, summarizing and explaining published medical knowledge. A capable general-purpose model can already perform portions of that work, especially when it has access to reliable sources.

That puts pressure on specialist companies to offer something doctors cannot easily get elsewhere: trusted medical content, dependable citations, validated clinical answers and convenient integration with daily workflows.

Specialized imaging and diagnostic companies face a different competitive environment. Replacing Cleerly's coronary plaque analysis, Aidoc's regulated imaging products or ScreenPoint Medical's breast screening software involves much more than producing good medical text. Clinical validation, regulatory authorization and integration with existing equipment create additional barriers.

OpenEvidence may face the greatest competitive pressure because its market is large and attractive to general-purpose AI providers. Its strong distribution gives it an advantage today, but maintaining that lead will require continued product improvement.

Are clinical decision support startup valuations actually justified today?

Clinical decision support startup valuations are partly justified by real adoption, fast-growing revenue and acquisition demand, but the highest valuations still assume substantial future growth.

OpenEvidence makes the tension obvious. At $15.0B, the company is valued far above its competitors. Its estimated $300 million annualized revenue and enormous physician audience support a strong business case, yet the reported $15 billion financing valuation represents around 50 times annualized revenue.

AMBOSS ($800M–$1.9B) has an established medical knowledge business, while Aidoc ($1.0B–$1.9B) has attracted substantial funding for its enterprise clinical AI platform. Their business models differ enough that a single valuation multiple would be misleading.

Medical imaging companies have another advantage: many of their products address existing diagnostic procedures, sometimes with established reimbursement pathways. Cleerly's expanded insurance coverage and the completed CathWorks acquisition illustrate that opportunity.

Acquisitions offer further evidence. RadNet paid $264 million for Gleamer, while Medtronic paid $585 million for CathWorks. Roche and Agilent have also agreed to substantial pathology AI transactions. These are concrete indications of strategic demand from established healthcare companies.

Still, clinical AI adoption has moved faster than proof of improved patient outcomes in many settings. The AMA's physician survey shows widespread professional use, while the large randomized trial published in Nature Medicine found no statistically significant improvement in its primary patient outcome.

Our conclusion is that clinical decision support has become a valuable and commercially relevant healthcare technology market. OpenEvidence is the standout financial winner today, while diagnostic imaging and specialized medical software offer several credible routes to billion-dollar scale.

The valuations most likely to hold up are those supported by growing revenue, repeated clinical use, reimbursement and lasting customer relationships. Companies relying mainly on the expectation that hospitals will eventually adopt their technology face a much harder test.