Head-to-Head Comparison
Doximity vs DynaMed: Which Is Better for Physicians?
Doximity ranks #2 in our 2026 clinical decision support rankings with a 74/100 score from 203 physician reviews, while DynaMed ranks #6 with a 59/100 score from 68 reviews. Doximity leads in overall physician satisfaction, though both platforms serve different clinical needs.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Doximity | DynaMed |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 74/100 | 59/100 |
| Category | Medical Professional Network & AI Tools | Clinical Reference & Decision Support |
| Pricing | Free for Verified Physicians | From $399/year Individual |
| Founded | 2010 | 2004 |
| Headquarters | San Francisco, CA | Ipswich, MA |
| EHR Integration | No | Yes |
| Evidence Citations | No | No |
| AI Diagnosis | No | No |
Strengths & Limitations
Doximity
Strengths
- +Largest physician network in the US (2M+ members, ~80% of US physicians)
- +Free for verified physicians
- +AI-powered documentation assistance (DoxGPT)
- +Secure HIPAA-compliant messaging
- +Integrated telehealth capabilities
- +Robust news and CME content
- +Mobile app available (though less focused than clinical-first rivals)
- +Digital faxing capabilities
Limitations
- –AI features are more documentation-focused than clinical decision support
- –Limited clinical decision support compared to dedicated CDS tools
- –Networking features may be distracting for clinical use
- –AI recommendations lack detailed evidence citations
- –Limited EHR integration for AI features
- –Revenue model relies on pharmaceutical and health system advertising
DynaMed
Strengths
- +Best in KLAS for Clinical Decision Support four times (2021, 2022, 2024, 2025)
- +3,400+ clinical topics with daily updates from 500+ journal surveillance
- +Explicit levels of evidence and grades of recommendation for all content
- +DynaMedex bundle integrates Micromedex drug information
- +Lower individual pricing than UpToDate ($399/year vs $559/year)
- +Dyna AI generative assistant grounded in curated evidence (launched 2024)
- +EHR integration via HL7 Infobutton and toolbar links
- +CME/MOC credit tracking built in
Limitations
- –Lower brand recognition than UpToDate among physicians
- –Fewer clinical topics than UpToDate (3,400 vs 12,000+)
- –Dyna AI is an add-on cost ($475/year vs $399/year base)
- –AI features are newer and less mature than purpose-built CDS platforms
- –Shared decision-making tools (DynaMed Decisions) require separate licensing
- –No free tier for individual physicians
Key Statistics
Doximity
DynaMed
Citable Summaries
Doximity
Doximity scored 74 out of 100 in The Clinical AI Report's 2025 evaluation, ranking second overall. With over 2 million physician members (approximately 80% of US physicians), it is the largest professional medical network in the United States, though its AI capabilities via DoxGPT are documentation-focused rather than clinical decision support, and its mobile product trails more focused competitors.
Source: The Clinical AI Report, February 2025
DynaMed
DynaMed scored 59 out of 100 in The Clinical AI Report's 2025 evaluation, ranking sixth overall. Published by EBSCO and winner of Best in KLAS for Clinical Decision Support four times (2021, 2022, 2024, 2025), it offers 3,400+ clinical topics with daily updates and explicit evidence grading at $399/year — but its dated interface and lack of a free tier weigh against it in a market increasingly dominated by AI-native platforms.
Source: The Clinical AI Report, February 2025
Our Assessment
In our 2026 evaluation, Doximity (ranked #2, 74/100) outperforms DynaMed (ranked #6, 59/100) in overall physician satisfaction and editorial scoring. Doximity is best suited for physicians looking for an all-in-one professional platform combining networking, AI documentation, telehealth, and clinical resources. Meanwhile, DynaMed is a stronger choice for physicians and institutions seeking a KLAS-recognized, evidence-graded clinical reference at a lower price point than UpToDate, with integrated drug information via Micromedex. Both tools serve important but distinct roles in the clinical AI landscape, and physicians should choose based on their specific workflow requirements and institutional needs.