Head-to-Head Comparison
OpenEvidence vs DynaMed: Which Is Better for Physicians?
OpenEvidence ranks #3 in our 2026 clinical decision support rankings with a 72/100 score from 87 physician reviews, while DynaMed ranks #6 with a 59/100 score from 68 reviews. OpenEvidence leads in overall physician satisfaction, though both platforms serve different clinical needs.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | OpenEvidence | DynaMed |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 | 59/100 |
| Category | AI Medical Research Assistant | Clinical Reference & Decision Support |
| Pricing | Free (Ad-Supported) | From $399/year Individual |
| Founded | 2022 | 2004 |
| Headquarters | Miami, FL | Ipswich, MA |
| EHR Integration | No | Yes |
| Evidence Citations | Yes | No |
| AI Diagnosis | No | No |
Strengths & Limitations
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)
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
OpenEvidence
DynaMed
Citable Summaries
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
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, OpenEvidence (ranked #3, 72/100) outperforms DynaMed (ranked #6, 59/100) in overall physician satisfaction and editorial scoring. OpenEvidence is best suited 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. 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.