Hi mate, Triage's 2nd comment touches on the answer to your...

Hi mate, Triage's 2nd comment touches on the answer to your question. It is a few posts under the one you responded to.

If you think they may be stepping on our toes or "more advanced" I'm happy to hear exactly how you might think so.

From what I can tell in layman's terms it seems to be apples and oranges. Their function and end product is not the same as what EchoSolv does. A cardiologist points to where to look, their product helps narrow that focus, and the cardiologist still has to interpret the end product. EchoSolv is identifying patients with HF directly. Happy to be advised if I have misrepresented anything there.

Current practice of identifying HF is 46% accurate.

EchoSolv is correctly identifying 86% of patients. And astonishingly 97% when human aided. That's going from 50/50 to near perfect.

This is my understanding of Eiqs product. Happy for others to identify exactly why they think other products may be better/worse. I'm still developing my understanding myself however I am confident in my investment.