Premium Reports
Contact KLAS
 Download Full Report    Zoom in charts



Related Series

Digital X-Ray Performance 2013
Digital X-ray 2011
Digital X-ray
Digital Radiography 2008

 End chart zoom
Digital X-Ray Product Comparison Report 2014 Digital X-Ray Product Comparison Report 2014
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Digital X-Ray Product Comparison Report 2014

June 15, 2014 | Read Time: 2  minutes

BOTTOM LINES Digital X-Ray Performance 2013: Wireless and Workflow in Focus


Reliable unit with great patient throughput. Easy-to-use and intuitive GUI consistent across CR and DR offerings. Detector battery life is meeting needs. Switching detectors works well, with nearly 40% using it. Carestream performs solidly across the ratings. 


Lands fifth out of five ranked vendors. Implementations have been problematic and not timely, largely attributed to bugs with a new system. Below-average reliability negatively affects patient throughput. Image quality slightly below average, but with tweaking a few said they got it exactly right. Service and support vary based on region—better in Northeast and weaker out West. 


Excellent reliability; downtime is quickly remedied. Solid product and tops in support and account management. Highest regarded dose monitoring that is meeting needs for those using it. Found in larger facilities over 200 beds. 


Leader with implementations; providers feel product does everything Siemens said it would do. Image quality and dose controls impress providers. However, several said workstation is cumbersome or inconsistent with Siemens’ other products. Field support is solid, but quicker response could improve it. 


Great reliability with very little downtime. Great value for quality x-ray equipment. Responsive service team. Image quality excellent across the board. Swapping detectors very easy to do with no hiccups. Detector battery life exceptional at an average of six to eight hours on one charge. 


Wireless customers much happier than tethered. High percentage of customers swapping detectors successfully. Tethers reported to break easily. Excellent image quality overall, especially for skeletal studies. 


Late to the game with wireless option. Large majority using tethered detectors. Several customers said they need better image quality, especially for small parts. Usability weaker than other vendors’ due to cumbersome workstation. Dose controls limited. Upholds reputation for excellent service personnel. 

*Preliminary Data Vendor

 Download Full Report

This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the full retail price. Please see the KLAS DATA USE POLICY for information regarding use of this report. © 2024 KLAS Research, LLC. All Rights Reserved. NOTE: Performance scores may change significantly when including newly interviewed provider organizations, especially when added to a smaller sample size like in emerging markets with a small number of live clients. The findings presented are not meant to be conclusive data for an entire client base.