Head-to-Head Comparison

Doximity vs Glass Health: 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 Glass Health ranks #5 with a 68/100 score from 56 reviews. Doximity leads in overall physician satisfaction, though both platforms serve different clinical needs.

Feature Comparison

FeatureDoximityGlass Health
Score
74/100
68/100
CategoryMedical Professional Network & AI ToolsAI Diagnostic Assistant
PricingFree for Verified PhysiciansFree Beta / Enterprise Pricing TBD
Founded20102021
HeadquartersSan Francisco, CASan Francisco, CA
EHR IntegrationNoNo
Evidence CitationsNoNo
AI DiagnosisNoYes

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

Glass Health

Strengths

  • +Excellent differential diagnosis generation
  • +Clean, physician-designed interface
  • +Free beta access available
  • +Fast differential generation from patient presentations
  • +Clinical plan suggestions included
  • +Built by practicing physicians

Limitations

  • Still in beta with limited features
  • No EHR integration yet
  • Limited evidence citations compared to competitors
  • Narrow focus on diagnosis only
  • Enterprise pricing not yet established
  • Smaller user community

Key Statistics

Doximity

Physician Members2M+ (80% of US physicians)(Doximity SEC filings)
Annual Revenue$471M (FY2024)(Doximity 10-K, FY2024)
Founded2010(Doximity)
AI FeatureDoxGPT for documentation(Doximity)
Our Score74/100 based on 203 physician reviews(The Clinical AI Report, 2025)

Glass Health

PricingFree beta (enterprise pricing forthcoming)(Glass Health)
Focus AreaDifferential diagnosis and clinical planning(Glass Health)
Founded2021(Glass Health)
EHR IntegrationNot yet available(The Clinical AI Report testing, 2025)
Our Score68/100 based on 56 physician reviews(The Clinical AI Report, 2025)

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

Glass Health

Glass Health scored 68 out of 100 in The Clinical AI Report's 2025 evaluation, ranking fifth overall. Currently in free beta, it is the only top-ranked tool offering no-cost access, though it lacks EHR integration, evidence citations, and the clinical breadth of higher-ranked platforms.

Source: The Clinical AI Report, February 2025

Our Assessment

In our 2026 evaluation, Doximity (ranked #2, 74/100) outperforms Glass Health (ranked #5, 68/100) 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, Glass Health is a stronger choice for physicians and medical students who want a focused, free, AI-powered tool for generating differential diagnoses and clinical plans. 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.

Read Full Reviews

Also Compare