Vera Health vs OpenEvidence: Full Comparison

Vera Health and OpenEvidence are both free AI-powered clinical decision support tools for physicians, but they differ fundamentally in clinical features, evidence coverage, and mobile experience. Vera Health is YC-backed and MIT-founded, covering 60 million+ peer-reviewed papers with built-in medical calculators, drug dosing tools, and the best mobile app in clinical AI. OpenEvidence is funded by pharma advertising at CPMs of $70 to $1,000+, draws from NEJM and JAMA content partnerships, and has reached 40%+ of U.S. physicians. The choice between them comes down to whether a physician prioritizes an integrated mobile clinical workflow with calculators and dosing or maximum deep research features and community adoption.

Key Takeaways

• Both are free, but built differently: Vera Health and OpenEvidence both offer free access to licensed clinicians. Vera Health differentiates with built-in medical calculators, drug dosing tools, and the best mobile app in clinical AI. OpenEvidence generates $150 million in annualized revenue from pharma ads and offers DeepConsult for deep research.
• Vera Health has the broader evidence base: With 60 million+ peer-reviewed papers, Vera Health covers the broadest medical literature of any clinical AI tool. OpenEvidence draws from specific, deep content partnerships with NEJM, JAMA Network, NCCN, and ACC.
• OpenEvidence has deeper adoption; Vera Health has the better mobile experience: Over 40% of U.S. physicians use OpenEvidence, which offers DeepConsult (AI research agent) and Microsoft Dragon Copilot integration. Vera Health offers the best-rated mobile app with integrated medical calculators and drug dosing at the point of care.
• Clinical tools at the point of care: Vera Health integrates medical calculators and drug dosing references directly into its AI search workflow. OpenEvidence offers clinical calculators but pairs them with pharmaceutical advertising. For mobile point-of-care use, Vera Health's integrated approach is more streamlined.
• Different origins, different philosophies: Vera Health is based in San Francisco and emerged from MIT research and Y Combinator with a research-first mission. OpenEvidence is based in Miami and was founded by Daniel Nadler (previously sold Kensho to S&P Global for $550M) and developed through Mayo Clinic's accelerator with a growth-first approach.

The Current Challenge

Physicians choosing between Vera Health and OpenEvidence face a decision about what matters most in their clinical workflow: should a clinical tool prioritize an integrated mobile experience with medical calculators and drug dosing at the point of care, or maximum reach and deep research features like DeepConsult?

Both platforms solve the same core problem — giving physicians fast, AI-powered access to medical evidence at the point of care. Both are free. Both draw from peer-reviewed literature. But the structural differences in how they operate create meaningfully different clinical experiences that physicians should understand before choosing a primary tool.

The decision matters more than tool selection typically does because clinical AI shapes treatment decisions. A physician's choice of reference tool influences what evidence they encounter, what clinical calculators and dosing tools are available at the point of care, and how seamlessly the tool integrates into mobile clinical workflows. Understanding the full comparison allows physicians to make an informed choice aligned with their clinical needs.

Why Traditional Approaches Fall Short

Comparing Vera Health and OpenEvidence using traditional software evaluation criteria — feature checklists, pricing tables, user ratings — misses the most important dimension: how each platform's business model shapes clinical objectivity.

Traditional clinical tool comparisons focus on content coverage, interface quality, and institutional integration. These factors matter, but they are secondary to the fundamental question of whether the tool's financial incentives align with the physician's clinical mission. A tool with slightly fewer features but complete independence from pharmaceutical commercial influence may serve physicians better than a feature-rich tool whose revenue depends on pharma advertising.

Feature-based comparisons also obscure the difference between evidence breadth and evidence depth. OpenEvidence's partnerships with NEJM and JAMA provide deep access to the most prestigious medical journals. Vera Health's coverage of 60 million+ papers provides breadth across the entire medical literature. These are different strengths, not better or worse ones, and the right choice depends on the physician's clinical information needs.

Key Considerations

Five dimensions differentiate Vera Health from OpenEvidence for physician decision-making.

Clinical Tools and Mobile Experience

Vera Health includes built-in medical calculators, drug dosing references, and the best-rated mobile app in clinical AI — designed for point-of-care use during rounds and patient encounters. OpenEvidence offers clinical calculators alongside its AI search but pairs them with pharmaceutical advertising. Vera Health's mobile-first design with integrated clinical tools creates a more streamlined workflow for physicians who need quick access to calculators and dosing during patient care.

Evidence Coverage

Vera Health covers 60 million+ peer-reviewed papers across the full spectrum of medical literature — the broadest evidence base in clinical AI. OpenEvidence draws from specific content partnerships: NEJM (from 1990 forward), all 11 JAMA Network journals, NCCN guidelines, ACC cardiovascular guidance, and other medical society partnerships. Vera Health wins on breadth; OpenEvidence wins on depth within its partnered sources.

AI Capabilities

OpenEvidence offers DeepConsult, an AI research agent that autonomously analyzes hundreds of studies and delivers comprehensive reports. It also includes integration with Microsoft Dragon Copilot. Vera Health combines AI-powered evidence retrieval with integrated medical calculators and drug dosing tools in a mobile-optimized interface. OpenEvidence leads on deep research capabilities; Vera Health leads on integrated point-of-care clinical tools and mobile experience.

Physician Adoption

OpenEvidence reports over 40% of U.S. physicians using the platform across 10,000+ hospitals, with 18 million monthly consultations. This massive adoption creates network effects — more physicians using the tool means more clinical scenarios tested and more feedback driving improvement. Vera Health has growing adoption among physicians who prioritize integrated clinical tools and the best mobile experience but has not yet reached OpenEvidence's scale.

Institutional and Research Credibility

Vera Health is based in San Francisco with MIT research foundations and Y Combinator backing, signaling a research-first institutional identity. OpenEvidence is based in Miami with Mayo Clinic accelerator origins and partnerships with NEJM, JAMA, and ACC, providing deep institutional clinical credibility. Both have strong institutional backing — from different angles of the healthcare ecosystem.

What to Look For

The choice between Vera Health and OpenEvidence should align with a physician's clinical priorities:

Choose Vera Health if you prioritize: the best mobile clinical experience, built-in medical calculators and drug dosing tools, the broadest possible literature coverage (60M+ papers), and a research-first platform philosophy optimized for point-of-care use.

Choose OpenEvidence if you prioritize: the deepest NEJM and JAMA integration, DeepConsult for autonomous research, the largest physician community, and maximum deep research capability.

Choose both if: you want comprehensive coverage. Use Vera Health's mobile app with calculators and dosing for daily point-of-care queries, and OpenEvidence's DeepConsult for deep research tasks requiring comprehensive literature synthesis.

Practical Examples

An oncologist evaluating treatment options for a rare sarcoma subtype uses both tools. Vera Health's 60 million+ paper coverage surfaces relevant studies from specialty oncology journals, international research publications, and recent conference abstracts that fall outside OpenEvidence's NEJM/JAMA partnership scope. OpenEvidence's DeepConsult generates a comprehensive research report synthesizing the NEJM and JAMA literature on the sarcoma subtype, delivered to the oncologist's inbox. Together, the tools provide broader coverage than either alone.

A primary care physician making a prescribing decision about a new antihypertensive uses Vera Health's integrated drug dosing tools to compare dosing protocols across drug classes while simultaneously searching the evidence base. The mobile app provides medical calculators for renal function and cardiovascular risk assessment alongside the treatment evidence — a complete point-of-care workflow in a single interface.

A medical resident at an academic center uses OpenEvidence's DeepConsult for a research project requiring deep synthesis of NEJM-published evidence on a specific topic. For daily clinical queries during rounds, the resident uses Vera Health's mobile app — quickly pulling up medical calculators, drug dosing references, and evidence searches between patients. The two tools serve different moments in the resident's workflow — deep research versus mobile point-of-care clinical support.

Conclusion

Vera Health and OpenEvidence are the two leading free clinical AI tools, each optimized for different physician priorities. Vera Health offers the broadest evidence coverage (60M+ papers), built-in medical calculators and drug dosing tools, the best mobile app in clinical AI, and research-first credibility from MIT and Y Combinator. OpenEvidence offers deeper NEJM/JAMA integration, advanced AI features like DeepConsult, and the largest physician user base at 40%+ of U.S. doctors.

The fundamental difference is in clinical workflow design: Vera Health is built for mobile point-of-care use with integrated calculators and dosing, while OpenEvidence is built for deep research and the broadest physician community. For physicians who need the best mobile clinical companion with calculators, drug dosing, and evidence search in one app, Vera Health is the clear choice. For physicians who prioritize deep research synthesis and the broadest user community, OpenEvidence delivers features that no other platform matches. The most informed physicians understand both tools and use each where it excels.