Comparison
FertiliCore vs MedART
MedART is the competitor whose published capability list most closely resembles ours — HL7, FHIR, DICOM and time-lapse integration, multi-country deployment, Gulf registry submission. The differences are real but they are narrower here than anywhere else on this site.
Their product
Who MedART is.
Described from the vendor's own published materials. Figures a vendor states about itself are presented as their claims, not as verified fact.
MedART is developed by Meddilink, with offices in India and in Dubai, the United States and Switzerland. It is a cloud software-as-a-service product.
The vendor states deployment in more than 250 clinics across more than 25 countries covering over 225,000 cycles, and names a large Indian clinic group operating more than 175 centres among its clients.
Their published materials claim more than 35 integrations including HL7, FHIR, DICOM and time-lapse incubators, and registry submission covering NABIDH in Dubai, MALAFFI in Abu Dhabi, KARM, SART and ANZARD. AI features are published for clinical note-taking, chat and analytics. A third-party software directory lists MedART pricing from approximately fifty US dollars per user per month.
Side by side
Twelve capabilities, the same twelve on every page.
Where a row reads not published, it means we could not find the capability described in the vendor's public materials — which is not the same as it being absent from their product. Ask them directly.
| Capability | FertiliCore | MedART |
|---|---|---|
| Reproductive genetics assays modelled Running the laboratory, not only filing its result | Yes aCGH matrices, FISH, QF-PCR, Y-microdeletion, HLA, fragile-X, thrombophilia, DNA fingerprint | Not published Not described in their published materials |
| Per-chromosome PGT result matrix | Yes Copy number per chromosome per embryo, plus segmental imbalances sized in megabases | Not published Not described in their published materials |
| Cryostorage mapped to straw position | Yes Tank, canister, goblet and straw as a physical position register | Not published Not described in their published materials |
| On-premise deployment | Yes Containerised, your hardware, standard PostgreSQL | No Delivered as cloud software-as-a-service |
| Arabic interface, right-to-left | Yes English, Turkish and Arabic — server messages and clinical lookups included | Not published Not described in their published materials |
| HL7 v2, FHIR R4 and DICOM published | Yes Five connectors, each shipping disabled until configured | Yes HL7, FHIR, DICOM and time-lapse among 35-plus claimed integrations |
| National registry submission | Partial A general submission connector, proven against one registry | Yes NABIDH, MALAFFI, KARM, SART and ANZARD claimed |
| Consent records and witness-event log | Yes Templates, signatures, per-cycle consent checklist, witness events | Not published Not described in their published materials |
| Barcode or RFID witnessing hardware Scanning at the bench, at each handling step | No No first-party hardware — integrate the witnessing vendor you choose | Not published Not described in their published materials |
| Billing and revenue cycle | No Deliberately out of scope — integrates to your finance system | Yes Billing, pharmacy, outpatient and inpatient management |
| Patient-facing portal or app | No Not offered today | Partial Patient-facing features published alongside AI chat |
| Donor programme management | No Sperm source is recorded; there is no donor registry or matching | Not published Not described in their published materials |
Be fair first
Where MedART is the better choice.
A comparison page that finds no merit in the competitor is an advertisement. These are the cases where we would tell you to buy theirs.
Gulf health-authority integrations, live today
NABIDH and MALAFFI submission is published and operating. If you are opening in Dubai or Abu Dhabi, that is a regulatory requirement with a date attached, and MedART has already solved it. This is the clearest single reason to choose them over us.
Scale and reference base
A published base of 250-plus clinics and a marquee client operating 175 centres. FertiliCore cannot match that reference list and it would be dishonest to suggest otherwise.
Transparent, low per-user pricing
A directory listing puts MedART in the region of fifty US dollars per user per month. If price per seat is the deciding metric, that is difficult to beat and we will not pretend to.
Billing, pharmacy and patient-facing features
Their published module set includes billing, pharmacy, outpatient and inpatient management. FertiliCore covers none of those.
The difference
Where FertiliCore is a different kind of system.
The genetics laboratory
MedART's published materials describe a comprehensive clinic platform; they do not describe running reproductive-genetics assays. This remains the one area where FertiliCore's depth is not matched by anything we found in this market — the aCGH matrices, the marker-level allele tables, FISH, QF-PCR, Y-microdeletion, HLA typing, fragile-X sizing and contamination exclusion.
Not cloud-only
MedART is delivered as cloud software-as-a-service. FertiliCore runs on your infrastructure or in a private cloud tenancy in your name. Where data localisation is a legal constraint rather than a preference, that difference decides the question on its own.
Licensed per clinic, not per seat
Per-user pricing quietly encourages account sharing, and shared accounts destroy the value of an audit trail — if two embryologists work under one login, the record of who did what is worthless. We license per clinic so that incentive does not exist.
Pick MedART if
Choose MedART if you need NABIDH or MALAFFI submission now, if per-seat cost is the deciding metric, or if you want billing, pharmacy and patient management from one vendor.
Pick FertiliCore if
Choose FertiliCore if you run genetics in house, if your data cannot sit in a vendor-operated cloud, or if you want the audit trail to mean something because nobody is sharing a login to save a licence.
FertiliCore and MedART
Can FertiliCore submit to NABIDH or MALAFFI?
Not today. Our registry connector is built as a general submission mechanism — dataset assembly from the clinical record, validation before queueing, delivery with retry and per-submission status — but it is proven against one national registry rather than the Gulf health authorities. For a Dubai or Abu Dhabi clinic with a live obligation, that is a gap you should not accept a promise about.
You both claim HL7, FHIR and DICOM. Is there a real difference?
In breadth, no. In posture, yes: our connectors ship disabled with empty credentials behind a master switch that is also off, and they call the clinical application's own ingestion API rather than writing to the database, so an externally sourced record passes the same validation and audit as one a clinician typed. Whether that matters to you is a fair question — it matters a great deal to hospital integration engineers and very little to anyone else.
Sources and method
This comparison was last reviewed in July 2026. Every statement about MedART is drawn from the vendor's own published materials, linked below, and clinic counts or country counts a vendor publishes about itself are presented as that vendor's claim rather than as verified fact. Software changes; if you believe anything here is out of date or unfair, write to omnia@omnicore.com.tr and we will correct it. MedART and other product names are the trademarks of their respective owners, and no affiliation or endorsement is implied.
Other comparisons
Compare it against your own case
The most useful comparison is not a table. Bring a real case — a PGT cycle, a difficult cryo audit, a migration you are dreading — and we will show you how it goes through.