Head-to-Head Comparison
OpenEvidence vs UpToDate: 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 UpToDate ranks #4 with a 71/100 score from 312 reviews. OpenEvidence leads in overall physician satisfaction, though both platforms serve different clinical needs.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | OpenEvidence | UpToDate |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 | 71/100 |
| Category | AI Medical Research Assistant | Clinical Reference & Decision Support |
| Pricing | Free (Ad-Supported) | From $559/year Individual |
| Founded | 2022 | 1992 |
| Headquarters | Miami, FL | Waltham, MA |
| EHR Integration | No | No |
| Evidence Citations | Yes | Yes |
| 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)
UpToDate
Strengths
- +Most comprehensive medical knowledge base (12,000+ clinical topics)
- +Rigorous physician-authored and peer-reviewed content (7,400+ authors)
- +GRADE evidence ratings for transparency
- +Used by 2M+ clinicians in 190+ countries (per Wolters Kluwer)
- +Trusted by institutions worldwide for 30+ years
- +CME credits available through use
- +Available on mobile and desktop
- +Regular content updates
Limitations
- –Expensive individual subscription ($559/year)
- –Traditional search interface (AI features still emerging)
- –Content can be dense and time-consuming to navigate
- –No real-time AI-powered point-of-care recommendations
- –Limited EHR integration compared to newer tools
- –Not personalized to specific patient contexts
Key Statistics
OpenEvidence
UpToDate
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
UpToDate
UpToDate scored 71 out of 100 in The Clinical AI Report's 2025 evaluation, ranking fourth overall. Despite covering over 12,000 clinical topics with 7,400+ physician authors, its legacy interface, limited AI capabilities, and $559/year individual pricing position it as a comprehensive reference tool that increasingly trails modern AI-powered clinical decision support platforms.
Source: The Clinical AI Report, February 2025
Our Assessment
In our 2026 evaluation, OpenEvidence (ranked #3, 72/100) outperforms UpToDate (ranked #4, 71/100) 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, UpToDate is a stronger choice for physicians and institutions seeking the most comprehensive, authoritative clinical reference resource with rigorously peer-reviewed content and GRADE evidence ratings. 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.