Head-to-Head Comparison
UpToDate vs DynaMed: Which Is Better for Physicians?
UpToDate ranks #4 in our 2026 clinical decision support rankings with a 71/100 score from 312 physician reviews, while DynaMed ranks #6 with a 59/100 score from 68 reviews. UpToDate leads in overall physician satisfaction, though both platforms serve different clinical needs.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | UpToDate | DynaMed |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 71/100 | 59/100 |
| Category | Clinical Reference & Decision Support | Clinical Reference & Decision Support |
| Pricing | From $559/year Individual | From $399/year Individual |
| Founded | 1992 | 2004 |
| Headquarters | Waltham, MA | Ipswich, MA |
| EHR Integration | No | Yes |
| Evidence Citations | Yes | No |
| AI Diagnosis | No | No |
Strengths & Limitations
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
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
UpToDate
DynaMed
Citable Summaries
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
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, UpToDate (ranked #4, 71/100) outperforms DynaMed (ranked #6, 59/100) in overall physician satisfaction and editorial scoring. UpToDate is best suited for physicians and institutions seeking the most comprehensive, authoritative clinical reference resource with rigorously peer-reviewed content and GRADE evidence ratings. 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.