denture·id
Ortho planning · head-to-head

Dolphin Imaging vs OnyxCeph3

Verdict. OnyxCeph3 leads on the overall Data Index (6.1 vs 5.8). On the 3 axes where both have evidence, Dolphin Imaging wins 0, OnyxCeph3 wins 2 and 1 is tied. Clearest gaps: features (OnyxCeph3 8.6 vs 4.3) and pricing clarity (OnyxCeph3 5.0 vs 2.0).

510 Features 4.3 · 8.6 Integrations 7.3 · – Pricing clarity 2.0 · 5.0 Support 4.0 · 4.0 Vendor stability 9.0 · – User rating 7.8 · –
Dolphin ImagingOnyxCeph3
Table view
AxisDolphin ImagingOnyxCeph3
Features 4.38.6
Integrations 7.3no data
Pricing clarity 2.05.0
Support 4.04.0
Vendor stability 9.0no data
User rating 7.8no data

Axis by axis

  • Features 4.3 vs 8.6 OnyxCeph3
  • Integrations 7.3 vs – no data
  • Pricing clarity 2.0 vs 5.0 OnyxCeph3
  • Support 4.0 vs 4.0 tie
  • Vendor stability 9.0 vs – no data
  • User rating 7.8 vs – no data

Side by side

Dolphin ImagingOnyxCeph3
Data Index 5.8 6.1
Category rank #3 of 12 · Ortho planning #2 of 12 · Ortho planning
User rating 3.9 / 5 —
Review count 27 —
Pricing transparency Quote only Partially public
License Quote only Subscription
Deployment Cloud Desktop
HIPAA claim Yes —
Company size 3,367 —
Markets US, CA global
Data completeness 78% 83%

Features

3 of 6 tracked capabilities differ. Only OnyxCeph3: aligner staging, in-house aligner export, and indirect bonding.

CapabilityDolphin ImagingOnyxCeph3
Cephalometrics✓✓
CBCT / 3D✓✓
Aligner staging?✓
In-house aligner export?✓
Indirect bonding?✓
Patient simulation✓✓

Choose Dolphin Imaging if…

    Full Dolphin Imaging profile →

    Choose OnyxCeph3 if…

    • you need aligner staging
    • you need in-house aligner export
    Full OnyxCeph3 profile →

    FAQ

    Is Dolphin Imaging better than OnyxCeph3?

    OnyxCeph3 leads on the overall Data Index (6.1 vs 5.8). On the 3 axes where both have evidence, Dolphin Imaging wins 0, OnyxCeph3 wins 2 and 1 is tied. Clearest gaps: features (OnyxCeph3 8.6 vs 4.3) and pricing clarity (OnyxCeph3 5.0 vs 2.0).

    Related comparisons

    See the full ortho planning ranking →