Glass Health vs OpenEvidence
Updated October 16, 2026
Doctors trying clinical AI in the United States most often start with OpenEvidence, and Glass Health is a frequent second look. The distinction that gets lost is that OpenEvidence answers clinical questions with citations, while Glass drafts the differential, the plan, and the visit note itself. One is a reference tool most clinicians pick up on their own, and the other is a paid workflow tool, so they solve different problems.
Our analysts compared Glass Health and OpenEvidence on adoption, product depth, onboarding, advertising, and pricing, using the HIR review of each company and each vendor's public plans. In the following sections, we compare the two side by side, explain which clinician each one fits, and summarize what each has shipped this year.
Glass Health vs OpenEvidence at a glance, October 2026
| What buyers weigh | Glass Health | OpenEvidence |
|---|---|---|
| Published price | Prices are posted on glass.health. | OpenEvidence describes its free version on openevidence.com. |
| Pricing model | Monthly plans for clinicians with posted prices. The developer API and health system setups are quoted separately. | Free for verified U.S. clinicians and paid for by advertising. Health systems negotiate agreements with OpenEvidence. |
| What drives cost | The plan (Lite, Starter, Pro, or Max), usage limits for note writing and diagnosis help, and EHR connection, which comes with the Max plan. | For individual clinicians, nothing. For a health system, what any system-wide agreement covers, such as connecting to its own systems and controls over advertising. |
| Main job | Drafts a differential diagnosis, a plan, and the visit note. | Answers clinical questions with citations to the studies behind them. |
| Adoption and time saved | Scores 5.9, with few published outcome studies. | Scores 8.5 on clinician adoption and time saved. Higher score |
| Product | Scores 7.0 for diagnosis, planning, and scribe tools, plus a developer API. | Scores 8.8 for clinical search and research. Higher score |
| Getting clinicians started | Scores 6.9. | Scores 8.8, and many doctors start on their own phones. Higher score |
| Advertising | Paid plans with no advertising model described. Clear edge | Paid for by advertising, including drug company sponsors. |
| What you need first | Physician lead for AI tools. | A clinical informatics lead or chief medical information officer as owner. |
| Deal-breaker | You need published studies of results. | You do not allow drug company advertising. |
| Pricing clarity score | 8.4 Clearer pricing | 7.0 |
| HIR overall score | 6.8, Conditional. | 8.4, Highly recommend. Higher score |
| Best for | Primary care and hospital medicine clinicians who want help drafting a differential diagnosis and a plan. | Physicians and advanced practice clinicians who want fast answers to clinical questions with citations to the studies behind them. |
| Not a fit for | Health systems that want published outcome studies before adopting a clinical AI tool. | Organizations that do not want drug company advertising inside a clinical tool. |
Which fits which buyer
Start with the job you want the software to do during a shift.
Choose Glass Health if
- You want AI to draft a differential diagnosis and an assessment and plan, then write the note.
- You prefer a paid plan with posted prices and no drug company advertising.
- You work in primary care, hospital medicine, or emergency medicine and want a mode tuned to that setting.
Choose OpenEvidence if
- You mainly want fast, cited answers to clinical questions at the point of care.
- You want a tool that verified U.S. clinicians can use for free.
- Your health system wants a reference tool with strong clinician adoption and published partnerships.
Verdict
OpenEvidence is the clear leader for cited clinical answers, and it scores far higher on adoption and onboarding. Glass Health is worth a trial for clinicians who want help building a plan and a note, as long as they accept thin published outcome data.
Organizations that bar drug company advertising inside clinical tools should look closely at the OpenEvidence model before rolling it out.
Where the two tools are headed in 2027 and beyond
Glass Health: Glass Health released Glass 5.5 with specialty modes in March 2026 and Glass 5.6 in May 2026. It added a choice of frontier AI models for Pro and Max users in June 2026, launched Glass for Patients in July 2026, and brought patient lists to clinicians in August 2026.
OpenEvidence: OpenEvidence launched EvidenceGrade, which shows the strength of the evidence behind each answer, on July 10, 2026. It introduced its own family of medical AI models on September 3, 2026.
If your clinicians will use both, decide which one may touch patient data and which stays a reference tool.
Methodology
Each row comes from the HIR reviews of Glass Health and OpenEvidence, scored under the HIR method, and from each vendor's public pricing where it exists. Any published price for Glass Health or OpenEvidence was checked on that vendor's own site on October 16, 2026.
A green check marks a clear edge for Glass Health or OpenEvidence only where their review scores differ by at least 0.3 points or the two reviews show a plain difference. Rows with nothing published for either Glass Health or OpenEvidence are left out, and time to full value for each adds up the rollout stages in its review.
Sources
- HIR review of Glass Health and HIR review of OpenEvidence
- Glass Health website
- OpenEvidence website
- Glass Health release announcements, March to August 2026
- OpenEvidence launches EvidenceGrade, July 10, 2026
- Introducing the OpenEvidence model family, September 3, 2026