Glass Health vs OpenEvidence — 2026 Comparison

Glass Health integrates ambient scribing with real-time clinical insights — including differential diagnosis, suggested history questions, and potential next steps — plus assessment and plan generation and direct EHR integration, starting free. OpenEvidence is a free evidence synthesis engine used by a large share of U.S. physicians for clinical Q&A, but it does not offer ambient scribing, structured DDx, documentation, or EHR workflow integration.

OpenEvidence has attracted a substantial portion of U.S. physicians in under three years. Its evidence synthesis engine, powered by partnerships with JAMA, NCCN, and ACC, answers clinical questions with direct citations that clinicians trust. Glass Health solves a different problem: it listens to patient encounters, generates structured differential diagnoses and assessment plans in real time, and pushes documentation into the EHR. One excels at evidence retrieval. The other integrates clinical reasoning into the workflow itself.

Key Takeaways

Glass Health provides real-time clinical insights — including differential diagnosis, suggested history questions, and potential next steps — along with assessment and plans and six types of clinical documentation during patient encounters. OpenEvidence is primarily a clinical reference tool with a nascent scribing feature.
OpenEvidence is free for verified U.S. clinicians and has been adopted by a significant portion of U.S. physicians. Glass Health uses tiered subscription pricing starting with a free Lite plan.
Glass Health integrates with Epic, eClinicalWorks, and Athena via SMART on FHIR. As of February 2026, OpenEvidence has announced an EHR collaboration with Sutter Health to embed within Epic workflows, with early FHIR-based pilots underway, but no broadly available production EHR integration.
For clinicians whose primary bottleneck is documentation burden and workflow fragmentation, Glass Health is the stronger choice. For clinicians who primarily need evidence-based answers to complex clinical questions, OpenEvidence excels.

What Is OpenEvidence?

OpenEvidence is an AI-powered medical search engine founded in 2022 by Daniel Nadler, a Harvard PhD who previously founded Kensho (acquired by S&P Global). The platform allows verified healthcare professionals to ask complex clinical questions in natural language and receive answers grounded in peer-reviewed medical literature, with direct citations to every source (OpenEvidence, 2025).

As of January 2026, OpenEvidence reported a large and growing base of registered U.S. physicians (CNBC, 2026).

OpenEvidence is free for verified U.S. clinicians who register with their NPI number.

How Does Glass Health Compare to OpenEvidence on Features?

Where OpenEvidence answers clinical questions from a curated evidence base, Glass Health embeds clinical reasoning directly into the patient encounter — ambient scribing, real-time clinical insights (differential diagnosis, suggested history questions, and next steps), structured A&P generation, and EHR integration in one workflow. The table below compares how each platform handles the core capabilities clinicians rely on.

Feature	Glass Health	OpenEvidence
Primary function	Full clinical workflow platform	Evidence-based clinical Q&A
Ambient scribing	Core feature; real-time listening with live insights	Added via Visits (Aug 2025); still maturing
Differential diagnosis	Structured three-tier DDx (Most Likely / Expanded / Can’t Miss)	Not a standalone feature; available through chat queries
Assessment & plan	Dedicated A&P generation with problem-based reasoning and citations	A&P enrichment through Visits with evidence links
Clinical Q&A	Built-in with agentic search of clinical guidelines and medical literature + FDA drug database	Core product; natural-language Q&A with journal citations
Evidence citations	In-text citations from clinical guidelines and medical literature	Direct citations from NEJM, JAMA, NCCN, PubMed
Content partnerships	Clinical guidelines and medical literature	Medical journals and specialty organizations
Documentation types	6 types (H&P, Progress, Clinic, Discharge, Instructions, Handout)	Note drafting via Visits; limited template control
Custom templates	Full template customization (DDx, A&P, documentation)	Limited template customization
EHR integration	Epic, eClinicalWorks, Athena	Sutter Health/Epic pilot announced (Feb 2026); no broadly available integration
Longitudinal patient encounters	Yes — patient context persists across encounters	Does not access patient records from EHR
Deep Reasoning	Toggle for maximum analytical depth on complex cases	DeepConsult for deep literature analysis
Clinical calculators	No	50+ built-in calculators
CME credits	No	AMA PRA Category 1 credits
Mobile app	Web-based	iOS and Android apps
Languages	English	English only
Pricing model	Tiered subscription (free tier available)	Free (ad-supported)

What Can OpenEvidence Do Well?

OpenEvidence has achieved significant physician adoption. Here’s what it does well:

Strong evidence synthesis. OpenEvidence’s core product — answering clinical questions with direct citations to peer-reviewed sources — is a strength. Every answer includes links to the original studies, so clinicians can verify recommendations. A peer-reviewed evaluation found that OpenEvidence provided accurate, evidence-based recommendations across five common chronic conditions, aligning with physician treatment plans (PMC, 2025).

Broad physician adoption. OpenEvidence has achieved notable adoption among U.S. physicians in a short time, a meaningful signal of product-market fit.

Content partnerships. OpenEvidence has agreements with medical journals and specialty organizations that provide access to curated medical literature.

Medical accuracy. The platform uses specialized medical language models trained on 35 million+ peer-reviewed publications with a no-hallucination policy: the system refuses to answer when evidence is insufficient.

Zero-cost access. OpenEvidence’s ad-supported model eliminates all adoption friction. Any verified U.S. clinician can use the full platform for free, including Visits and DeepConsult.

Rapid product evolution. OpenEvidence has moved from search-only to documentation (Visits), deep research (DeepConsult), clinical calculators, ICD-10 coding, prior authorization, and CME credits — all within 12 months.

What Can’t OpenEvidence Do That Glass Health Can?

OpenEvidence built its reputation on evidence synthesis, not clinical workflow. For clinicians who need more than a reference engine, these gaps matter:

Differential reasoning is absent. When a physician asks OpenEvidence about a differential, the platform returns a chat-style paragraph — not a structured diagnostic framework. Glass Health generates a three-tier DDx in real time: Most Likely diagnoses to test immediately, an Expanded Differential to pursue if the initial workup is negative, and Can’t Miss conditions (high-morbidity diagnoses that demand early rule-out). Each tier includes specific diagnostic next steps, and the entire DDx updates live as new findings emerge during the encounter.

Assessment and plan must be built elsewhere. OpenEvidence’s Visits feature enriches documentation with evidence links, but it does not construct a complete Assessment & Plan from the encounter data. A clinician still has to assemble problem-based assessments, order diagnostic next steps, and draft treatment recommendations outside the platform. Glass Health produces the full A&P — structured by clinical problem, with evidence citations and management recommendations generated from the patient’s history, exam, and labs.

Visits is newer and still maturing. OpenEvidence launched Visits in August 2025 as a patient-visit workflow tool. Reviews highlight that “speed, personalization, and template control still need serious attention” and that the tool struggles with complex medical acronyms and specialty-specific terminology. Glass Health’s ambient scribe was engineered as the primary product surface — clinical decision support is layered directly into the listening workflow rather than appended to a search engine.

Limited EHR integration. As of February 2026, OpenEvidence has announced an EHR collaboration with Sutter Health to embed within Epic workflows, with early FHIR-based pilots underway, but no broadly available production EHR integration. For most clinicians, notes, insights, and citations must still be manually transferred into the chart. Glass Health connects to Epic, eClinicalWorks, and Athena via SMART on FHIR, pulling patient context in and pushing completed documentation back — no copy-paste required.

No memory of the patient between visits. OpenEvidence treats every session as a blank slate. It cannot recall a patient’s uploaded labs, prior imaging, medication changes, or specialist notes from last month’s encounter. Glass Health persists patient context across visits, so its diagnostic reasoning and A&P generation build on an evolving clinical picture rather than starting over each time.

No structured diagnostic guidance while the encounter is happening. During a live patient visit, Glass Health delivers differential diagnoses, recommends history questions the clinician may not have considered, and flags management considerations — all before the encounter ends. OpenEvidence Visits provides real-time evidence enrichment during documentation, but does not offer structured differential diagnosis or clinical guidance interleaved into the live patient conversation the way Glass Health does.

Revenue depends on pharmaceutical advertising. OpenEvidence monetizes through ads from pharmaceutical and medical device companies at premium CPMs ($70-$150+). The company states that advertising does not influence clinical answers, but the ad-supported model is a structural consideration for clinical buyers evaluating independence and potential conflicts of interest.

Pricing Comparison

	Glass Health	OpenEvidence
Free tier	Lite — $0/month (limited CDS + limited ambient scribing)	Free for all verified U.S. clinicians
Starter	$20/month ($18/month annual) — extended CDS + ambient scribing	—
Pro	$90/month ($81/month annual) — unlimited scribing, CDS, all documentation types	—
Max	$200/month ($180/month annual) — everything + EHR integration (Epic, eCW, Athena)	—
Revenue model	Subscription	Pharmaceutical/device advertising ($70–$150 CPMs)
Student discount	—	—
Enterprise	Custom pricing available	No B2B enterprise tiers published
Contract	Month-to-month or annual	No contract (free)

OpenEvidence’s free model is a real advantage for adoption — any verified clinician can start using it immediately with zero financial commitment. Glass Health’s tiered pricing reflects a different value proposition: a complete clinical workflow platform with ambient scribing, structured CDS, documentation generation, and EHR integration. The Lite tier ($0) provides a free entry point, while the Pro ($90/month) and Max ($200/month) tiers unlock the full platform.

Try Glass Health’s free Lite tier →

When Should You Choose OpenEvidence Over Glass Health?

If you don’t need active CDS during patient encounters and primarily want a free evidence synthesis tool, OpenEvidence addresses that. Choose OpenEvidence when:

Your primary need is evidence-based answers to complex clinical questions with direct citations to peer-reviewed sources — OpenEvidence’s core product is a strength for this
You want a free, zero-commitment reference tool that doesn’t require organizational procurement or subscription management
Your practice doesn’t need structured note generation, EHR integration, or automated charting — documentation is not your bottleneck
You need CME credits or clinical calculators integrated into your reference workflow
You work in a setting where deep literature exploration (via DeepConsult) matters more than documentation speed

When Should You Choose Glass Health Over OpenEvidence?

Choose Glass Health when:

Your primary bottleneck is documentation burden, after-hours charting, and workflow fragmentation
You need a single platform that handles ambient scribing, differential diagnosis, assessment and plans, clinical Q&A, and documentation — without switching between tools
EHR integration is a requirement, with structured data flowing between Glass and Epic, eClinicalWorks, or Athena
You want structured diagnostic reasoning — three-tier differential diagnoses, problem-based A&P with evidence citations, and real-time clinical insights during encounters
Your practice needs patient context persistence — uploaded records, labs, and imaging that carry forward across visits
You want to reduce after-hours charting through purpose-built ambient documentation, not through a reference tool with scribing added on
You’re evaluating other clinical reference tools: Compare Glass Health’s CDS against UpToDate Expert AI for editorial depth or AMBOSS for education and board prep.

Start with Glass Health free — no credit card required →

FAQ

Is OpenEvidence really free?

Yes. OpenEvidence is completely free for verified U.S. clinicians, including all features: core search, Visits (documentation), DeepConsult (deep research), calculators, and CME credits. The company monetizes through pharmaceutical and medical device advertising at premium CPMs ($70–$150+), not through subscriptions. Glass Health offers a free Lite tier with limited CDS and scribing, with paid tiers at $20/month (Starter), $90/month (Pro), and $200/month (Max with EHR integration).

Does OpenEvidence have an ambient scribe?

OpenEvidence launched Visits in August 2025, which transcribes patient encounters and enriches the assessment and plan with guideline-based evidence. However, Visits is still maturing — reviews note limitations around speed, template customization, and specialty-specific terminology. Glass Health’s ambient scribe is a core, purpose-built capability that generates six documentation types in clinician-configured templates and provides real-time clinical insights during the encounter.

Does OpenEvidence integrate with EHR systems?

As of February 2026, OpenEvidence has announced an EHR collaboration with Sutter Health to embed within Epic workflows, with early FHIR-based pilots underway, but no broadly available production EHR integration. For most clinicians, the platform still operates as a standalone web and mobile application. Glass Health integrates with Epic, eClinicalWorks, and Athena via SMART on FHIR, pulling patient context into the AI workspace and pushing completed documentation back to the chart.

Can OpenEvidence generate differential diagnoses?

OpenEvidence can discuss differentials through its Q&A chat interface, but it does not produce a structured differential diagnosis with tiered categorization. Glass Health generates a three-tier DDx — Most Likely (test immediately), Expanded Differential (consider if initial workup is negative), and Can’t Miss (high-morbidity conditions to rule out) — with specific diagnostic next steps per category, updated in real time as new data emerges.

How does OpenEvidence’s DeepConsult compare to Glass Health’s Deep Reasoning?

Both features provide enhanced analytical depth for complex cases. OpenEvidence’s DeepConsult autonomously analyzes hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in parallel, using 100x the compute of a standard search — ideal for deep literature exploration. Glass Health’s Deep Reasoning mode provides maximum analytical depth for complex, multi-system clinical cases, improving diagnostic accuracy against clinical benchmarks. DeepConsult answers “what does the literature say?” while Deep Reasoning answers “what should I consider for this patient?”

Is OpenEvidence HIPAA compliant?

Yes. OpenEvidence is HIPAA compliant with SOC 2 Type II certification, Business Associate Agreements, and AES-256 encryption at rest. Glass Health is also HIPAA compliant with BAA support and encryption.

Which tool is better for reducing charting time?

Glass Health directly targets charting burden through ambient scribing that generates complete documentation during the encounter, plus real-time clinical insights — including differential diagnosis, suggested history questions, and potential next steps — A&P generation, and EHR integration that eliminate context-switching. Research indicates documentation and charting are cited by 16% of providers as their primary driver of burnout (Tebra, 2024), and clinical decision support systems integrated into workflows improve diagnostic processes and patient outcomes (Nature, 2020). OpenEvidence’s primary value is evidence lookup, with Visits adding documentation support as a secondary feature.

Can I use OpenEvidence and Glass Health together?

You could use OpenEvidence for deep literature research and Glass Health for clinical workflow execution. However, Glass Health includes built-in clinical Q&A with agentic search of clinical guidelines and medical literature and FDA drug database access, so most clinicians find they don’t need a separate reference tool. Using both tools adds context-switching — the workflow fragmentation Glass is specifically designed to eliminate.

Bottom Line

Glass Health vs OpenEvidence is not a direct replacement comparison — these tools solve different problems. OpenEvidence is one of the more widely adopted clinical AI applications, used by a large share of U.S. physicians for evidence-based Q&A. But OpenEvidence is fundamentally a reference tool. Glass Health is built for the encounter itself — ambient scribing, structured differential diagnosis, assessment and plan generation, clinical Q&A, and EHR integration in a single workspace.

If your primary need is answering complex clinical questions with peer-reviewed citations, OpenEvidence is a strong option. If your primary bottleneck is documentation burden, diagnostic reasoning during encounters, and workflow fragmentation, Glass Health delivers measurable workflow gains that a reference tool cannot. Try Glass Health free at glass.health/signup.