I'm not as familiar with HeartFlow, but i think I did look into it briefly around the time I had the Cleerly analysis done. It looks like it's in the same ballpark as Cleerly, so maybe would provide you with similarly useful info. His comment that Cleerly is only to determine if you need treatment flies in the face of everything I've seen/read/heard. To me, the value of Cleerly is that it provides a benchmark for monitoring progress. With periodic scans, you can see if new plaque is developing (and, if it is, where it is developing). You can also see whether the plaque you have is becoming more calcified. This is the big one to me. I think I mentioned before that my Cleerly test showed that ~2/3 of my plaque is calcified, and the other 1/3 non-calcified, with no low-density soft plaque. Relatively speaking, this seemed encouraging; hopefully when I next get a scan these numbers will be better. The idea is that the denser/more calcified your plaque is, the more stable it is and the lower your event risk is. And Cleerly seems like a good way of measuring/monitoring this. But maybe HeartFlow can give you the same info.

I found the presentation from Matthew Budoff in this Cleerly video valuable and it was the main reason I got the analysis done:
https://cleerlyhealth.com/transforming-cardiac-care/?mtm_campaign=cleerly_tcc-webinar-series