Looq vs Aidoc
A detailed comparison to help you choose between Looq and Aidoc.
🏆
Verdict: Aidoc wins
Aidoc scores 4.2/5, edging out Looq at 3.7/5. Hospital radiology departments and integrated health systems with meaningful acute imaging volumes that want one governed platform for many FDA-cleared triage algorithms instead of a stack of point solutions.
Looq Handheld 3D survey capture for infrastructure projects | Aidoc AI powered radiology image analysis platform | |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 3.7 (1 review) | 4.2 (1 review) |
| Pricing Model | freemium | paid |
| Starting Price | Free tier available | From $10000/mo |
| Best For | Utility, T&D and civil teams that need frequent, safe ground-level 3D capture of infrastructure between full survey campaigns and want CAD-ready deliverables without LiDAR or drone programs. | Hospital radiology departments and integrated health systems with meaningful acute imaging volumes that want one governed platform for many FDA-cleared triage algorithms instead of a stack of point solutions. |
| Free Tier | ||
| API Access | ||
| Team Features | ||
| Open Source | ||
| Tags | free tierapi access | api accessteam featuresgdpr compliant |
| Visit Looq → | Visit Aidoc → |
Looq
Pros
- + One capture chain covers setup, capture, PPK processing, control alignment, drafting and CAD/GIS export (GeoTIFF, LAZ, SHP, DXF, CSV) — no LiDAR or drone logistics
- + Honest tiered accuracy publishing: ~3 cm global out of the box, ~2 cm with a local base, sub-cm with control, relative under 5 mm — each tier priced by effort, not quoted at best case
- + Live residual preview and PDF accuracy reports in the Align step give licensed surveyors the adjustment workflow they actually require
- + Semantic classification (poles, wires, signs, vegetation) plus qPole engineering-ready pole models turn point clouds into asset inventories for utility workflows
- + Field ergonomics: single-screen capture with path tracking, automatic people/vehicle filtering, IP67 body and 4-5 hour battery suited to real work days
Cons
- - Not a software-only purchase: real capture needs the qCam on a custom quote; the only published software number I found is $29.99/month for Pro (third-party), with one listing showing hardware-scale pricing above $30,000
- - Accuracy conditions are strict — 3-5 cm RMS assumes ideal GNSS and a reference station within 10 km; canopy and urban canyons degrade it
- - Purely optical: unseen geometry (pole backs across ditches, crossarm undersides) needs supplementary capture; the vendor's own FAQ acknowledges crews crossing the road for pole tags
- - Capture above walking pace awaits future software updates; current run-rates are ~250 poles/day on foot, ~450 hybrid (vendor figures)
- - Early-stage company: 15 employees and $3.75M total funding as of the 2024 launch — a durability consideration for a hardware-dependent field program
Aidoc
Pros
- + Widest FDA-cleared acute triage portfolio I have reviewed: 31 authorisations on the FDA's December 2025 list, plus the first multi-indication clearance covering 14 abdominal CT findings in one workflow
- + Multi-triage consolidation meaningfully reduces alert noise — one flagged study produces one stacked panel, not one pop-up per algorithm
- + Real-world deployment evidence: Mercy Health documented urgent case turnaround falling from 19.8h to 1.3h across 50+ hospitals, with 5,642 patients expedited from 50,749 flagged findings
- + Vendor-neutral aiOS layer lets a health system run third-party and Aidoc algorithms through one governance and notification stack (17 FDA-cleared algorithms deployed at Hartford HealthCare)
- + Care Coordination and Patient Management close the loop beyond triage: mobile alerts with image context, and report mining that routes incidental findings to facility-defined follow-up protocols
Cons
- - No public pricing, no trial, no free tier — third-party estimates of ~$50k/site/year baseline with $8k-$15k per extra module are unverifiable until you are deep in a sales process
- - Hospital-only: requires PACS/RIS/EHR integration work, so it is irrelevant to individual clinicians, small practices and low-volume facilities
- - 510(k) clearance for most modules does not itself require independent clinical performance data (per JAMA Network Open) — buyers should demand the study set, not just the clearance count
- - No public changelog for algorithm updates, which is a real gap for a system whose output feeds clinical decisions
- - Vendor performance figures (order-of-magnitude false-alert reduction, 1,600+ hospitals) are company claims I could not independently audit
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is better, Looq or Aidoc?▼
Aidoc scores higher at 4.2/5 vs 3.7/5 for Looq, making it the better-rated option in our comparison.
What is the difference between Looq and Aidoc?▼
Looq: Looq AI captures survey-grade 3D point clouds from handheld photogrammetry, used for land survey, civil engineering and utility infrastructure work without LiDAR. Aidoc: Aidoc analyses medical imaging to flag urgent findings for radiologists and care teams, prioritising the cases that need attention first.
Is Looq or Aidoc more affordable?▼
Looq starts at €0/mo, Aidoc starts at €10000/mo. Check the comparison table above for current pricing.
Stay in the loop
Get weekly updates on the best new AI tools, deals, and comparisons.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.