Head-to-Head Comparison
OpenEvidence vs Glass Health: 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 Glass Health ranks #5 with a 68/100 score from 56 reviews. OpenEvidence leads in overall physician satisfaction, though both platforms serve different clinical needs.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | OpenEvidence | Glass Health |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 | 68/100 |
| Category | AI Medical Research Assistant | AI Diagnostic Assistant |
| Pricing | Free (Ad-Supported) | Free Beta / Enterprise Pricing TBD |
| Founded | 2022 | 2021 |
| Headquarters | Miami, FL | San Francisco, CA |
| EHR Integration | No | No |
| Evidence Citations | Yes | No |
| AI Diagnosis | No | Yes |
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)
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
OpenEvidence
Glass Health
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
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, OpenEvidence (ranked #3, 72/100) outperforms Glass Health (ranked #5, 68/100) 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, 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.