CathWorks vs FDNA
CathWorks vs FDNA, compared side by side on 22 data points: what each one does, how big it is, what it has raised, the tech running each site, and what users report. We score both out of 100 on traction, team and visibility: CathWorks is on 62/100 and FDNA on 59/100.
Where each one leads
CathWorks
- agent readiness: 46/100 against 21/100
- headcount: 80 against 43
- funding raised: $156M against $25.0M
- LinkedIn following: 12,341 against 3,123
FDNA
- domain rating: 45/100 against 29/100
- headcount growth: +15.0% against +5.6%
At a glance
| Measure | CathWorks | FDNA |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Medical technology company optimizing coronary artery disease therapy decisions with FFR-based assessment. | Detecting rare diseases early with the help of AI Imagine a world where every person’s genome serves as their medical record to guide health decisions. |
| Category | Healthcare, Medical Imaging, 3D, MedTech | Healthcare, Medical Imaging, Phenotype, Facial |
| Sells toBusiness model | B2B | B2B |
| Offering | Hardware, Software | Software |
| Founded | 2003 | 2010 |
| Headquarters | Tel Aviv, Israel | Boston, United States |
| Status | Active | Active |
Size, funding and growth
| Measure | CathWorks | FDNA |
|---|---|---|
| Employees | 80 | 43 |
| Headcount growthLast 12 months | +5.6% | +15.0% |
| Total funding | $156M | $25.0M |
| Latest round | Strategic | Seed |
| LinkedIn followers | 12,341 | 3,123 |
StartupHub scores
Our own 0-100 ratings. They measure company strength and site quality, not which product suits you.
| Measure | CathWorks | FDNA |
|---|---|---|
| StartupHub scoreOur 0-100 rating | 62/100 | 59/100 |
| Traction | 59/100 | 53/100 |
| Team | 70/100 | 70/100 |
| Community | Not published | 8/100 |
| Search visibility | 36/100 | 33/100 |
| Quality | 65/100 | 68/100 |
| Agent readinessHow well an AI agent can read and act on the site | D (46/100) | F (21/100) |
| Domain ratingLink authority, 0-100 | 29/100 | 45/100 |
Technology
Detected on each public site, so it reflects the marketing stack as well as the product.
| Measure | CathWorks | FDNA |
|---|---|---|
| Hosting | Not detected | AWS |
| CDN | Cloudflare | Not detected |
| CMS | WordPress | WordPress |
| Frameworks | Jquery | Jquery, Tailwind CSS |
| Analytics | Google Analytics 4, Jetpack Stats, Linkedin Insight | Google Analytics 4 |
CathWorks vs FDNA: common questions
Which is better, CathWorks or FDNA?
On our 0-100 score CathWorks rates higher (62/100 against 59/100). The score weights traction, team, visibility and profile completeness, so it reflects company strength rather than which product suits you. We compare the two on 22 data points above: read the rows that match what you are buying for.
How do CathWorks and FDNA compare on the numbers?
CathWorks leads on agent readiness (46/100 against 21/100), headcount (80 against 43), funding raised ($156M against $25.0M), LinkedIn following (12,341 against 3,123). FDNA leads on domain rating (45/100 against 29/100), headcount growth (+15.0% against +5.6%).
Read the full CathWorks review and pricing or the FDNA review and pricing. You can also browse other CathWorks alternatives we track.