Head-to-Head Comparison

UpToDate vs Glass Health: 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 Glass Health ranks #5 with a 68/100 score from 56 reviews. UpToDate leads in overall physician satisfaction, though both platforms serve different clinical needs.

Feature Comparison

FeatureUpToDateGlass Health
Score
71/100
68/100
CategoryClinical Reference & Decision SupportAI Diagnostic Assistant
PricingFrom $559/year IndividualFree Beta / Enterprise Pricing TBD
Founded19922021
HeadquartersWaltham, MASan Francisco, CA
EHR IntegrationNoNo
Evidence CitationsYesNo
AI DiagnosisNoYes

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

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

UpToDate

Clinical Topics12,000+(Wolters Kluwer)
Physician Authors7,400+(Wolters Kluwer)
Global Users2M+ clinicians in 190+ countries(Wolters Kluwer)
Individual PricingFrom $559/year(UpToDate)
Evidence SystemGRADE evidence ratings(UpToDate)
Our Score71/100 based on 312 physician reviews(The Clinical AI Report, 2025)

Glass Health

PricingFree beta (enterprise pricing forthcoming)(Glass Health)
Focus AreaDifferential diagnosis and clinical planning(Glass Health)
Founded2021(Glass Health)
EHR IntegrationNot yet available(The Clinical AI Report testing, 2025)
Our Score68/100 based on 56 physician reviews(The Clinical AI Report, 2025)

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

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, UpToDate (ranked #4, 71/100) outperforms Glass Health (ranked #5, 68/100) 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, 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.

Read Full Reviews

Also Compare