Honest comparison,
explicit criteria
Comparing reporting tools requires physician authorship, governance, auditing, data and evidence. LaiBench is internal and controlled and does not replace local validation.
The questions that set the tools apart
- AUTHORSHIPDoes the AI sign anything? Here, never: the radiologist reviews, edits and signs
- MEASUREMENTLaiBench v3.10: fidelity across 120 internal cases; not external clinical validation
- PERFORMANCEIs the number from production? Here, yes: median of 52 s from editor to signature
- DATAFlow, regions, subprocessors, persistence and retention documented per deployment
- TRAININGDoes your data train models? Here, no
- STANDARDWhose template is it? Here, your institution's, versioned
- AUDITIs there a log per exam? Here, yes, aligned with CFM 2.454/2026
What each approach delivers between speech and signature
Columns by approach, not by brand: an honest brand comparison requires the other vendor's numbers, and those must come from its own sources. The named comparisons are just below.
| Criterion | Laudos.AI | Classic speech recognition | Generic AI (chat) | Manual workflow |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Real-time report structure | Yes, in your institution's template | No: transcribes running text | Only with a manual prompt, no standard | Typing and formatting by hand |
| Whose template? | The institution's, versioned | Per-user macros | Nobody's: every answer is different | Shared Word file |
| Classifications (BI-RADS, LI-RADS…) | Native, with the source cited in RadCommons | No | Cites from memory, with no guideline version | Manual lookup |
| Critical finding | CRIT flow with logging (controlled pilot) | Out of scope | Out of scope | Phone or group chat, no trace |
| Audit trail per exam | Yes, aligned with CFM 2.454/2026 | Partial (dictation log) | None | None |
| Does your data train third-party models? | No | Depends on the contract | Depends on the plan; real risk | Not applicable |
| Published performance with scope | Median of 52 s from editor to signature, measured in production | Rare; accuracy without a sample | Not applicable | Literature: ~10 min per report |
| PACS/RIS integration | HL7 v2, FHIR R4, DICOM-SR — validated per deployment | Varies by vendor | None | Native to the RIS |
Where the row depends on contract or deployment, the table says so instead of promising. Numbers in the Laudos.AI column: methodology.
Comparisons by alternative
Compare the alternatives by the full clinical workflow, integration, governance, authorship and published evidence.
- MANUAL WORKFLOWAVERAGE · COMPLEX CASESMEDIAN · 52 sMETHOD
Traditional dictation vs. structured reporting
The underlying comparison: what changes between speech and signature, criterion by criterion, with measured metrics and the honesty to say where free dictation still wins.
Open comparison → - DICTATION
Alternative to Laudite
Compare speech recognition with speech-to-report, integration, governance and public measurement.
Open comparison → - WORKFLOW
Alternative to LeoRad
Compare structuring, classifications, critical findings and integration with the existing environment.
Open comparison → - PLATFORM
Alternative to Voxel
Compare usage model, physician authorship, data residency and institutional deployment.
Open comparison →
Questions that decide the comparison
What is the difference between speech recognition and speech-to-report?
Speech recognition transcribes what was said and stops there; formatting, structure, classification and the critical findings protocol remain manual. Speech-to-report uses dictation as input and returns the structured report in the institution's template, for the physician to review, edit and sign. The difference shows up in the time between speech and signature, not in word accuracy rate.
Can ChatGPT or another generic AI write reports?
It writes plausible text, and plausible is the wrong adjective for a report: no cited corpus, no guideline versioning, no audit trail, no health data processing agreement and, depending on the plan, your text training the model. The regulatory and clinical risk falls entirely on whoever signs. A clinical tool needs governance that a general-purpose product does not offer.
How do you compare AI reporting vendors?
With explicit, written criteria: who signs (physician authorship), what is measured and with what sample, where the data stays and who processes it, whether your data trains models, whose template it is, whether there is a log per exam and what the integration requires. Ask for the numbers with scope — sample, period, what it measures and what it does not — and be wary of accuracy without a sample. Full guide at /biblioteca/comparar-fornecedores-ia-radiologia.
Why are the named comparisons separate?
Because an honest brand comparison requires verifiable facts about the other product, and every named claim needs a source. The alternative pages do this criterion by criterion; this table compares approaches, which is what holds up without depending on third-party marketing material.
Whose criteria does the pilot use?
Yours. Scope, baseline, connectors and acceptance criteria are defined with the institution before starting, and the result is measured against your event definition — not ours.
Versus traditional dictation
Classic speech recognition transcribes; it does not structure, does not suggest classifications, does not know your institution's template and does not know what a critical finding is. The gain stops at typing. The assistive layer begins where transcription ends: real-time structure, imported context, critical findings protocol and a log per exam.
Versus generic AI
A general-purpose model writes plausible text, and plausible is the wrong adjective for a report. Without a cited corpus, guideline versioning, an audit trail or guaranteed data residency, the regulatory and clinical risk stays with whoever signs. Our design reverses that: criteria cited in RadCommons, quality measured in LaiBench, documented compliance.
Versus staying as you are
The real alternative for most services is the current setup: free-text reports, templates in Word, critical findings in the group chat. The literature points to about 10 minutes per report in the manual workflow; our median in production is 52 seconds, with an average of 3 to 5 minutes in complex cases. The math of hours returned per 100 reports usually ends the discussion.
Direct questions
Why don't you publish a table against competitor X?
Because a vendor's table about a competitor ages badly and is rarely fair. We publish criteria and our measurement; the comparison is better in your hands, with your case in the pilot.
How do I validate your claims?
LaiBench is public and case by case; RadCommons is citable; the production numbers are on this page and on the press page. And the pilot runs in your routine, with your criteria.
A scorecard to use in your setting
How to build a comparison that survives the demo
Use the same set of cases, the same environment and the same definition of start and end. Compare time to signature, corrections, window switching, template adherence, classification, critical findings communication, integration and audit trail. Price comes in together with deployment, support and the cost of the workflow that stays manual.
No public table can claim compatibility with every RIS or performance with your noise, accent and exam mix. Those items should become test cases in the pilot. The best comparison is not the one that gives a vendor the most points; it is the one that makes clear which evidence is still missing before the decision.
Compare with your real case in the demo
Live demo with your exam types and your institution's template, right in the product.
Questions and answers
How many items does this comparisons section have?
There are 4 pages published in this section, and each one opens directly, with no sign-up and no paywall. All sections
What is this comparisons section for?
To compare reporting software alternatives by what changes in the routine, without hiding what each one does best. Who publishes
Is the content reviewed by a physician?
Yes. Editorial responsibility lies with a radiologist registered with CRM-SP, and each page shows the date the content last changed. Who signs
Does this replace clinical assessment?
No. The material supports the decision of whoever writes the report. The finding, the clinical correlation and the management remain with whoever signs the exam. Clinical governance
Before you choose software
Compare features, check terms and use the trial plan in your reporting workflow.