Head-to-Head Comparison
Doximity vs OpenEvidence: 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 OpenEvidence ranks #3 with a 72/100 score from 87 reviews. Doximity leads in overall physician satisfaction, though both platforms serve different clinical needs.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Doximity | OpenEvidence |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 74/100 | 72/100 |
| Category | Medical Professional Network & AI Tools | AI Medical Research Assistant |
| Pricing | Free for Verified Physicians | Free (Ad-Supported) |
| Founded | 2010 | 2022 |
| Headquarters | San Francisco, CA | Miami, FL |
| EHR Integration | No | No |
| Evidence Citations | No | Yes |
| 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
OpenEvidence
Strengths
- +Free for all verified physicians
- +Massive adoption (430,000+ US physicians, 8.5M consultations/month)
- +Founded by Harvard researchers via Mayo Clinic Platform Accelerate
- +Content partnerships with NEJM, JAMA Network, NCCN
- +Cited responses from peer-reviewed literature
- +Clean, intuitive interface for quick queries
- +Well-funded with strong investor backing ($12B valuation)
Limitations
- –Limited EHR integration capabilities
- –No real-time point-of-care decision support
- –No differential diagnosis generation or drug dosing
- –Ad-supported revenue model (pharmaceutical/healthcare advertising)
- –Independent testing: 41% accuracy on complex subspecialty scenarios (medRxiv, 2025)
- –Involved in ongoing litigation with multiple competitors (see editorial note)
Key Statistics
Doximity
OpenEvidence
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
OpenEvidence
OpenEvidence scored 72 out of 100 in The Clinical AI Report's 2025 evaluation, ranking third overall. Founded by Harvard researchers and launched through Mayo Clinic Platform Accelerate, the platform has raised over $700 million and reports 430,000+ registered US physicians. Despite rapid growth, independent testing found 41% accuracy on complex subspecialty scenarios, and the company is involved in ongoing litigation with multiple competitors.
Source: The Clinical AI Report, February 2025
Our Assessment
In our 2026 evaluation, Doximity (ranked #2, 74/100) outperforms OpenEvidence (ranked #3, 72/100) 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, OpenEvidence is a stronger choice for physicians who want a free, widely adopted AI literature search tool with NEJM and JAMA content partnerships — and who understand the ad-supported model and accuracy limitations on complex cases. 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.