I don't think the 2 companies should be directly compared against each other for a number of reasons. The fact Micro-X has 4 probably commercial opportunities ahead of it, all quite different, is clearly a differentiator for now.
Regarding the Australian Stroke Alliance funding model, and why they both received $8M funding, the end goal is clear: Improve the early detection of stroke, with mobility (i.e size) the obvious "prize". But the so-called winner, if there is only 1 (and I suspect that both MX1 and EMV will have their units installed in the future) will be about whether it is good enough to work.
EMVision is focusing solely (from what I can tell) on the electromagnetic microwave imaging technology, and for now focused on the brain scanner. This is reasonably new, and is certainly not yet / currently used to assess whether a patient has had a stroke, what type of stroke it is, and possibly if it is a different type of brain bleed injury (for example an aneurism).
Micro-X on the other hand is "miniaturising" existing computed tomography (CT). For decades this has been the "gold standard of care" in assessing brain injuries, including strokes. Peter Rowland specifically mentioned during the investor call recently when asked about if he was "worried about EMV". His answer could be interpreted a number of ways, differently by different people. But what he ultimately relied upon was the position that CT is "proven", the microwave imaging not as much, not yet anyway.
Getting approvals from FDA etc to use a smaller, existing CT technology will be far simpler than getting the same approval for new technology where it will be a life or death outcome if the technology isn't accurate enough. I am certainly not suggesting that EMVision's technology won't work, is not as good or won't become the "new" standard of care in the future though. There appears to be quite a lot of research dating back to circa 2010 that "imaging" in addition to CT will provide almost 100% diagnosis of "clots vs bleeds".
So, does the new Australian Stroke Alliance model see having both onboard the ambulance as the 100% solution? Or are they hedging their bets so they have the best CT tech as well as the best imaging tech (subject to it getting relevant Authority approvals) to install when the time comes?
As for outside the ambulance setting, I'm not a medical expert of any field, but i find it hard to believe that CT will be replaced anytime soon for everything it is used for. Remember, CT is not just X-ray, it is "CAT" scan technology that Micro-X has shrunk the size of. Everything from broken bones, internal bleeding, cancer tumours etc (for both humans and animals of course, hence the veterinary products being sold now).
Then you add the IED robot technology that every Security agency/FBI/SWAT/Bomb disposal unit across the world will want as the cost will be irrelevant to preserving the life of a team member.
Throw in small baggage scanners, across airports and sports stadiums and secure government buildings across the world?
I hold EMV, but I've been compiling as many MX1 shares as possible over the last 12 months. Yes, I certainly think it is undervalued on its future prospects but they are still prospects, for now. When they are no longer prospects, I don't think anyone will be comparing the value of MX1's marketcap to EMVs. Of course, EMV might pull off various regulatory approvals and it has a proven multi-billion Company maker at its helm.
Good luck to both of the companies I say, but my bigger investment is in the bigger and wider opportunities that Micro-X presents us with for now.
Expand
