Where wearable studies actually fail
Analysis cannot fix data that never arrived.
VivoSense's analytic and validation work is real and respected. But it operates on data captured by someone else's platform and devices. If wear-time decays or sync fails upstream, the most sophisticated analysis still has gaps. Delve owns that upstream layer: device-agnostic capture, signal QC, and concierge wear-time recovery in 120+ languages.
Bottom line: If you have capture handled and want a specialist analytics and outcome-validation partner, VivoSense is excellent. If you want capture, signal QC, wear-time recovery, and eCOA owned end-to-end in one platform, Delve is the better fit.
Where VivoSense and Delve genuinely overlap
At the capability level, both can support a modern wearable-enabled trial. Both typically offer:
- Validated outcome measures from sensor data
- Work across multiple sensors and devices
- Objective, sensor-derived digital endpoints
- A regulatory-grade, validation-focused approach
The differences show up once you ask what happens when a participant stops wearing the device, when a sensor produces unusable data, or when an endpoint depends on validated algorithms across more than one device.
Side-by-side comparison
VivoSense vs Delve Health: capability comparison
The table reflects publicly documented positioning and standard delivery models for each platform. Specific configurations vary by contract.
| Capability | VivoSense | Delve Health |
|---|---|---|
| Signal quality & endpoint integrity | ||
| Primary offering | Sensor analytics / validation layer | Full capture-to-endpoint platform |
| Data capture & device integration | Analysis layer, not capture | Owned, device-agnostic |
| Validated digital-endpoint algorithms | Outcome-measure validation | 70+ algorithms across 25+ devices |
| Signal quality control / completeness | Analytics-level QC | Owned QC at capture |
| Wear-time recovery (human) | No | Concierge in 120+ languages |
| eCOA / ePRO included | No | Fully configurable eCOA |
| Device logistics & provisioning | No | End-to-end across devices |
| Per-study completion accountability | Not a capture-side deliverable | 92–98% documented per study |
| Compliance posture (HIPAA, GDPR, 21 CFR Part 11, GCP, ISO 27001) | Yes | Yes |
Why wearable-heavy studies pick Delve
Four reasons sponsors choose Delve when wearable endpoint integrity, wear-time, or retention is the deliverable — not the customer's problem to solve.
Completion is the deliverable
Delve publishes documented 92–98% per-study eCOA/ePRO completion ranges and up to 63% retention uplift in long-duration cohorts — platform-owned, not the customer's problem to solve.
Validated algorithms across many devices
70+ validated digital-endpoint algorithms across 25+ devices on one harmonized data layer that normalizes units, sampling rates, time bases, QC flags, and algorithm versions.
Signal quality, owned end-to-end
Signal quality control validates completeness, flags drift, and catches sync failures before data is lost — not discovered at database lock.
Humans recover wear-time
Concierge-as-a-Service in 120+ languages recovers participants before wear-time decays — proactive outreach, device troubleshooting, escalation.
Which platform fits your study
Choose the platform that fits your operating model
Choose VivoSense if…
- You already have capture and a platform in place
- You want a specialist analytics and outcome-validation partner
- You are deriving validated endpoints from existing raw sensor data
- You want an analysis layer rather than a full execution platform
Choose Delve Health if…
- You need capture, QC, and wear-time owned, not just analysis
- You want validated algorithms across many devices in one platform
- You need human concierge wear-time recovery in 120+ languages
- You want eCOA, logistics, and analytics together
- You want documented per-study completion (92–98%)
Frequently asked questions
Questions sponsors ask when comparing VivoSense and Delve Health
Is Delve Health a VivoSense alternative?
They sit at different points in the chain. VivoSense is a sensor-analytics and outcome-measure validation layer that works on captured data. Delve owns capture, signal QC, validated algorithms, wear-time recovery, eCOA, and concierge. If you need the upstream data quality owned, not just the analysis, Delve is the better fit.
What is the difference between an analysis layer and a capture platform?
An analysis layer like VivoSense turns existing raw sensor data into validated outcome measures. A capture platform like Delve owns getting complete, usable data in the first place, across devices, with QC and wear-time recovery. Analysis cannot recover data that was never collected.
Does VivoSense capture wearable data or recover wear-time?
VivoSense focuses on analytics and outcome-measure validation rather than capture or patient-side wear-time recovery. Delve owns capture and includes concierge wear-time recovery in 120+ languages.
Can Delve and an analytics specialist work together?
Yes. Delve can own device-agnostic capture, QC, and wear-time while a specialist contributes analysis, or Delve can run validated algorithms end-to-end. The deciding question is who guarantees the data quality the analysis depends on.
Which is better for deriving validated endpoints?
Both can produce validated endpoints. VivoSense is a deep analysis layer; Delve runs validated algorithms across many devices and protects the underlying data with signal QC and wear-time recovery so the endpoints are built on complete data.
Evaluating Delve against VivoSense?
Ask each vendor one question: what happens to your endpoint when a participant stops wearing the device? The answer tells you more than any device list.
Book a Platform Walkthrough