Head-to-Head Comparison
OpenEvidence vs Isabel Healthcare: 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 Isabel Healthcare ranks #7 with a 58/100 score from 41 reviews. OpenEvidence leads in overall physician satisfaction, though both platforms serve different clinical needs.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | OpenEvidence | Isabel Healthcare |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 | 58/100 |
| Category | AI Medical Research Assistant | AI Differential Diagnosis |
| Pricing | Free (Ad-Supported) | From $750/year Individual |
| Founded | 2022 | 2000 |
| Headquarters | Miami, FL | Haslemere, UK |
| EHR Integration | No | Yes |
| 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)
Isabel Healthcare
Strengths
- +25+ years of experience in AI-powered diagnosis (founded 2000)
- +96% diagnostic inclusion rate in published case testing (BMJ Quality & Safety, 2011)
- +Comprehensive differential diagnosis lists
- +Covers both common and rare conditions
- +Used by major health systems globally
- +Available as API for EHR integration
Limitations
- –Interface feels dated compared to newer tools
- –Higher price point for individual users ($750/year)
- –Limited to differential diagnosis functionality
- –Slower to incorporate latest AI advances
- –Mobile experience could be improved
Key Statistics
OpenEvidence
Isabel Healthcare
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
Isabel Healthcare
Isabel Healthcare scored 58 out of 100 in The Clinical AI Report's 2025 evaluation, ranking seventh overall. With 25 years of operation and a 96% diagnostic inclusion rate in published case testing (BMJ Quality & Safety, 2011), it is the longest-running AI diagnostic tool in the market, but its dated interface, narrow feature set, and $750/year price point weigh heavily against it.
Source: The Clinical AI Report, February 2025
Our Assessment
In our 2026 evaluation, OpenEvidence (ranked #3, 72/100) outperforms Isabel Healthcare (ranked #7, 58/100) 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, Isabel Healthcare is a stronger choice for health systems seeking a clinically validated differential diagnosis tool with a 25-year track record and API integration capabilities. 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.