OpenEvidence
Verified Oct 23, 2026 ActiveMedical question answering with source citations
Listed on EffectHub ·
Pricing
- Pricing model
- 100% Free
Free for verified US clinicians; no paid tier is published. Funded by advertising, largely pharmaceutical, shown in the product. Access requires healthcare-professional verification, so it is not open to the general public.
Use tool ↗About OpenEvidence
OpenEvidence answers clinical questions with a cited response drawn from more than 35 million peer-reviewed papers plus FDA and CDC sources, including licensed full text from NEJM, the JAMA Network journals, Nature, Cochrane and NCCN guidelines, and grades the strength of the evidence behind each answer. It is free for verified US clinicians, who must confirm their professional status (an NPI number) before use, and earns revenue from advertising shown alongside answers; clinicians can also collect CME credit for questions asked. The web app is joined by iOS and Android apps that add ambient visit documentation, a dialer and a voice mode. The company is OpenEvidence Inc. in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
- API
- Not confirmed
- Last verified
- Oct 23, 2026
Verified sources
- App Store listing: free, seller OpenEvidence Inc., NPI required, free for all verified US clinicians, official AI partner of NEJM, JAMA and its 11 specialty journals, Nature, NCCN, Cochrane and Wiley, answers cite 35M+ papers plus FDA and CDC, EvidenceGrade, CME and MOC credit, Visits, Dialer and Voice Mode (15 October 2026)apps.apple.com ↗
- JAMA Network announcement of its content agreement bringing the network's 13 journals to OpenEvidencemedia.jamanetwork.com ↗
- Company announcement datelined Cambridge, MA, of a $210M round at a $3.5B valuation and the claim of being the fastest-growing physician applicationpatients.openevidence.com ↗
- openevidence.com serves a JavaScript wall to automated clients and /about answers HTTP 403, so the site itself could not be read (15 October 2026)openevidence.com ↗
Is OpenEvidence legit?
We don’t label tools safe or unsafe. Below are the records we checked ourselves, each with the date we read it.
- Domain registered
- Jan 2, 2004 (22 years ago)Registry record (RDAP), registrar Squarespace Domains II LLC, looked up Sep 6, 2026
- TLS certificate
- Issued by Let's Encrypt, valid until Dec 6, 2026Seen in our own connection to the site on Oct 23, 2026
- Last checked
- Oct 23, 2026The site answered, but turned our crawler away
- Operated by
- OpenEvidence Inc., United StatesOur research, card verified Oct 15, 2026
Pros & cons of OpenEvidence
For a US clinician this is the obvious free alternative to a general chatbot: the answers cite the journals you would cite yourself, the licensed NEJM and JAMA text is something ChatGPT cannot legally see, and it costs nothing. The trade is that the business model is pharmaceutical advertising inside a clinical tool, and the service is closed to everyone without a US professional identifier.
Pros
- Every claim carries a citation, with licensed full text from NEJM, JAMA, Nature and Cochrane rather than abstracts
- Free with no paid tier, and CME credit accrues from ordinary use
- Evidence grading shows how strong the support for an answer is
- Mobile apps add ambient documentation and voice mode for use during consultations
Cons
- Revenue is pharmaceutical advertising placed next to clinical answers, a conflict worth keeping in view
- US-only verification shuts out clinicians elsewhere, and the guideline corpus leans US practice
- The site refuses automated access and the vendor publishes little about accuracy on complex cases
- No API or integration path for health systems that want it inside the EHR
Best for
- US physicians, NPs and PAs who want cited point-of-care answers instead of a general chatbot
- Residents and trainees who want CME credit and evidence grading built into the lookup
- Clinicians who need the licensed full text of NEJM and JAMA articles in the answer
Not for
- Clinicians outside the United States and anyone without a verifiable professional licence
- Patients and researchers, since the main product is gated to healthcare professionals
Watch out: Answers appear beside sponsored content from drug makers, so treat drug-specific recommendations with the same scepticism you would apply to a rep's visit.
Alternatives to OpenEvidence
OpenEvidence head-to-head
Side-by-side fact sheets against the competitors our research or their makers name — pricing, platforms, API and both verdicts on one page.
AI tools by profession
Healthcare & Medical is one of the jobs on this page: