Annual cost
vs evidence

01How to read it

Competitors are anonymised and grouped by regulatory framework. What matters to a buyer is not who is who, but where each solution falls on the plane, and what it costs to be there.

The cost axis carries no figures: each solution’s price is a matter of contract, and ours is no exception. The positions come from estimates of total cost of ownership per department per year, gathered from public list prices, tender records and vendor disclosures (2025–2026).

The evidence scale runs from 1 (isolated case reports) to 5 (meta-analysis), through case series, a single randomised controlled trial (RCT) and multiple RCTs. RVer’s score reflects the mechanism of virtual reality therapy, supported by the published literature; there is no RCT of the device itself. Each solution was characterised on the same parameters, by different bodies.

02What this means

The cost gap between RVer and the nearest European solution represents 37% to 63% in additional annual cost. For an institution with four departments, the gap against the most expensive solutions reaches €10,000–€40,000 per year.

The advantage does not come from doing less: it comes from having no localisation costs, domestic technical support, and licensing calibrated to Portuguese public-health budgets. RVer runs on Meta Quest 3, and the headsets are supplied, configured and managed by us, the institution neither buys nor administers any hardware.

The gap widens with scale. With RVer, each additional headset in a department costs about half the first, an institution that starts with one department and grows to four does not multiply the bill by four. The exact figure depends on the contract, and we give it in a conversation.

It is also the only solution in the set with national registration in Portugal, Class I Medical Device with INFARMED, under MDR 2017/745. In Portuguese public tenders that is usually an eligibility criterion, not an extra.