Diagnostics & imaging AI · Radiology reporting AI
RADPAIR
RADPAIR is web-based generative AI reporting software for radiologists. Radiologists dictate findings in plain speech, and it builds the structured report and impression.
Strong fit
- Individual radiologists and small groups who want to try generative AI reporting with a free trial
- Practices on Intelerad systems that want an AI reporting partner it has chosen
- Radiologists who want to dictate in plain speech and let the software build the structured report
Weak fit
- Practices that want a full PACS and worklist from the same vendor
- Buyers who need independent studies of time savings
- Hospitals that need a long record of enterprise deployments
Bottom line
RADPAIR is a Knoxville, Tennessee company that makes web-based reporting software for radiologists. A radiologist speaks findings naturally, and its generative AI sorts them into a structured report and impression. It is a Conditional pick because its time savings come from the company and early users rather than published studies, though anyone can test it with a free trial.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Avez Rizvi, a radiologist, founded RADPAIR and is its chief executive. The software runs in a web browser. A radiologist speaks naturally, without dictating punctuation or exact sentences, and RADPAIR fills in a structured report. Its PAIR Insights feature pulls guidelines from Radiopaedia into the report on request, and Wingman lets the radiologist ask for edits out loud. Rizvi told Axis Imaging News that users save roughly 30 to 40 percent of their reporting time.
AuntMinnie named RADPAIR the best new radiology vendor of 2024. In May 2025 Intelerad, a large maker of radiology imaging software, chose RADPAIR as its prime reporting partner and the companies said early user feedback suggested efficiency gains of 30 to 40 percent over traditional reporting tools. RADPAIR also offers PAIRsdk for developers and has partnered with Fovia AI and Fireworks AI.
Compare Rad AI when a large practice wants AI impressions from a vendor with more deployments, New Lantern when a group wants reporting, viewer, and worklist together, and Sirona Medical when a practice wants a full cloud platform that can replace its PACS.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Rad AI | 7.7 | 7.2 |
| Sirona Medical | 7.5 | 6.9 |
| New Lantern | 7.2 | 7.2 |
| RADPAIR | 6.9 | 7.5 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Free 7-day trial with 20 reports, then pay-as-you-go credits for individual radiologists. Private practices, teleradiology groups, and health systems buy enterprise licenses through sales. |
| What usually drives cost | Report volume for individual users, and number of radiologists, integrations, and partner modules for enterprise licenses. |
| What to ask in diligence | Credit price per report at your volume, enterprise license terms, and the cost of PACS and reporting integrations. |
| Published pricing | Free trial of 20 reports over 7 days, no credit card; pay-as-you-go credits after that. |
Credit prices were not listed on the public pricing section we checked.
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get RADPAIR to function | |
| Radiologists willing to trial it | Reporting habits are personal. |
| PACS or worklist integration plan | Reports must reach the right study. |
| Template review | Practice templates should match how RADPAIR structures reports. |
| Quality check on early reports | Generated text must be reviewed before signing. |
| Security review | Dictation and reports are processed in the cloud. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Run the free trial on real cases | Shows time saved before buying. |
| Measure reports per hour | Vendor claims are not a substitute for your own numbers. |
| Use Wingman edits instead of typing | Keeps the radiologist on the images. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| No integration path | |
| No reviewer for early reports | |
| Needs full PACS | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Trial | 1 week |
| 2 | Integration and enterprise contract | 4-8 weeks |
| 3 | Practice rollout | 1-3 months |
Leadership
Methodology
| Weight | Factor | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| 35% | Customer outcomes | Whether buyers get measurable operational or clinical-workflow results after go-live |
| 30% | Product | Capability depth, reliability, and fit for the job the category buys |
| 20% | Implementation | How hard it is to stand up, integrate, train, and stabilize |
| 15% | Pricing clarity | Whether a buyer can model total cost without a mystery quote |
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Highly recommend | Strong outcomes and product with manageable caveats |
| Recommend | Solid fit for the right buyer; know the tradeoffs |
| Conditional | Only with a specific use case or heavy caveats |
| Not recommended | Avoid for most buyers in this category |
Read our full methodology for how we weight scores and assign recommend labels.