General Imaging Ultrasound Product Comparison Report 2014

GE HEALTHCARE 

Top performer. Providers praise the Scan Assistant tools and the ergonomic features such as ability to easily raise and lower the monitor. GE less costly on average. XDClear has additional functionality and excellent image resolution. The six provid - ers who rated it gave average score of 96 out of 100. Some regional variance in service—customers in the Southeast and Northeast not as happy as those in the Central or Western regions. A couple of providers noted poor quality of refurbished probes. 

PHILIPS 

Top-tier performer. Organ-identification tool saves time. Noticeable time-savings for vascular and extremity scans Automa - tion tools and touch-screen user interface very intuitive. Most expensive on average. Those using xMatrix probe very satisfied on average, though room to improve image quality. Early adopters of Philips’ new EPIQ platform report software glitches, resulting in less satisfaction for EPIQ customers than iU22 customers. 

SIEMENS 

Siemens lands fourth out of four. Users report good time-savings with breast imag - ing. Some like the automated protocols, but others say S2000 is complex, over - engineered compared to GE and Philips units. Some lingering glitches from initial S2000 rollout. Early adopters of the S3000 report improved image resolution, deeper penetration, better ergonomics, though at a higher price. 

TOSHIBA 

Ranked third, with a large drop over the last year. Almost five points behind Philips. Weakest performance in workflow automation. Biggest time-savings in OB/ GYN scans, but lagging behind other vendors in time saved with vascular/echo and extremity scans. Service and support lagging; over 20% said they would not buy again. Reported to be most expensive after Philips; however, a couple of providers mentioned an extended warranty option as adding some value.

Project Manager
Robert Ellis