Doximity GPT vs OpenEvidence (2026)
The two products a United States clinician can use free today, reached through very different front doors. Doximity's assistant lives inside the professional network the company has operated since 2010, and its most distinctive design decision is one nobody else in this category states: an explicit internal boundary between where the product retrieves and where it generates, so drug answers come from a quantified corpus rather than from the model. OpenEvidence has the stronger evidence position by a wide margin, with eleven independent studies evaluating it in two years and named partnerships with the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and Cochrane, plus Epic embedding at named health systems. Doximity has published no evaluation of the assistant at all. Both are free because a pharmaceutical company is paying somewhere in the chain, and the difference is only where.
- The architecture is stated in the useful way: the company draws an explicit line inside its own product between where it retrieves and where it generates, with the drug corpus quantified, so a clinician knows which answers are looked up and which are written.
- It sits inside a professional network the company has run since 2010, so access for a verified United States clinician is close to frictionless and the same account already carries the rest of the toolset.
- The data commitments are specific rather than decorative: encryption in transit and at rest, and sessions stated to be private to the individual clinician.
- Eleven independent studies published between 2024 and 2026 evaluating this product, identified through a systematic review following PRISMA, against a product with no located evaluation of any kind.
- Named content partnerships rather than an unspecified corpus: the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and its eleven specialty journals, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews.
- It reaches the record system. Enterprise deployment is embedded in Epic and documented at Mount Sinai across seven hospitals, where no electronic health record integration was located for the alternative.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Doximity GPT and OpenEvidence are each graded against the same capability taxonomy, from each vendor's own public materials and the regulatory record, under the AI Health Index verification standard. No vendor pays for placement, and no vendor has reviewed this page. How this evidence is graded
Plain facts
| Fact | Doximity GPT | OpenEvidence |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Clinical Reference & Evidence | Clinical Reference & Evidence |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2021 |
| Headquarters | San Francisco, California | Miami, Florida |
| Website | doximity.com | openevidence.com |
Side by Side
Each record in one paragraph
Written to be quoted whole. Each paragraph states what the AI Health Index verified about the vendor, with the caveats attached. Generated from this pair’s live capability grades, so it moves when a grade moves.
The AI Health Index awards Doximity GPT its top capability grade on AI Centrality. Set against OpenEvidence, Doximity GPT grades higher on Model and Technology Transparency and AI Liability and Recourse. Grades reflect evidence the AI Health Index could verify at the last review, so a low grade records disclosure the vendor has not published rather than a capability it has been shown to lack.
Source: AI Health Index, August 2026
The AI Health Index awards OpenEvidence its top capability grade on AI Centrality and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Set against Doximity GPT, OpenEvidence grades higher on several axes, including Clinical and Operational Evidence, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on AI Liability and Recourse. Grades reflect evidence the AI Health Index could verify at the last review, so a low grade records disclosure the vendor has not published rather than a capability it has been shown to lack.
Source: AI Health Index, August 2026
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose Doximity GPT or OpenEvidence?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Doximity GPT grades higher on Model and Technology Transparency and AI Liability and Recourse, and OpenEvidence grades higher on several axes, including Clinical and Operational Evidence, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. OpenEvidence leads on the greater share of scored axes, but the split means the decision turns on which constraint is binding rather than on an overall winner.
Where do Doximity GPT and OpenEvidence differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Doximity GPT and OpenEvidence is on Security Certifications and Trust Center, where Doximity GPT grades C and OpenEvidence grades A. That axis sits in the Regulatory and Compliance group, so it should carry the most weight for a buyer whose binding constraint is where regulatory exposure sits and who carries it.
Where do Doximity GPT and OpenEvidence grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Doximity GPT and OpenEvidence the same on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and Model Supply Chain Disclosure. Neither holds an advantage the index can evidence on those axes, so they should not carry weight in a selection between these two.
What have Doximity GPT and OpenEvidence not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Doximity GPT and OpenEvidence published thin or absent detail on AI Liability and Recourse. The AI Health Index treats an absent disclosure as a gap in the public record rather than a failure of the product, so these are the axes to get in writing during diligence instead of inferring from the grade.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Clinical Decision Support page.
The business models differ in ways worth stating plainly. OpenEvidence is funded by pharmaceutical and medical device advertising displayed alongside clinical answers, governed by a published advertising policy that is the artifact to read before accepting the arrangement.
Doximity's products are funded by pharmaceutical marketing across the wider network rather than inside this assistant specifically, which is a different placement of the same commercial relationship and equally worth understanding. Doximity GPT publishes no accuracy study, error rate, clinician review panel or benchmark result, no governance artifact and no record system integration, and its naming is inconsistent across the company's own material. Neither product publishes a bias or subgroup performance analysis.