OpenEvidence vs Vera Health (2026)
Both are free to verified clinicians and both search the published literature, so the comparison turns on evidence and on paperwork. OpenEvidence has the evidence: eleven independent studies in two years, named partnerships with the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and Cochrane, and Epic embedding at named health systems. Every number Vera Health publishes about itself is vendor generated, including a licensing examination score that tells you about examinations rather than about bedside answers. Vera Health has the paperwork: the full text of its business associate agreement published publicly and dated, an explicit statement that personal data does not train its models, and United States hosting stated in the privacy policy. That combination is rare here and it matters more than it looks, because a free product without an agreement cannot legally carry patient detail. Use OpenEvidence for reach and scrutiny, Vera Health where contracting is the obstacle.
- The evidence position is the deepest in this category and none of it was commissioned: a systematic review following PRISMA identified eleven independent studies evaluating this product between 2024 and 2026.
- Named partnerships with the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and its eleven specialty journals, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews, plus enterprise Epic embedding documented at Mount Sinai across seven hospitals.
- Two answer modes for two different questions, a short cited answer in seconds for the point of care and a longer research mode for a question that deserves it.
- The full text of its business associate agreement is published at a public address and dated, which is the strongest posture on that axis in this segment and something a buyer can read before entering a sales process rather than after.
- The architecture is retrieval first by design and the company says so, searching a corpus given as more than 60 million peer reviewed papers, guidelines and care pathways, ranking and grading before generating rather than generating and then citing.
- The privacy position is explicit rather than implied: personal data is stated not to be used to train its models, and services are stated to be hosted and operated in the United States.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. OpenEvidence and Vera Health 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 | OpenEvidence | Vera Health |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Clinical Reference & Evidence | Clinical Reference & Evidence |
| Founded | 2021 | Not recorded |
| Headquarters | Miami, Florida | San Francisco, California |
| Website | openevidence.com | verahealth.ai |
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 OpenEvidence its top capability grade on AI Centrality and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Set against Vera Health, OpenEvidence grades higher on Clinical and Operational Evidence, Security Certifications and Trust Center and EHR and Interoperability Depth. 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
The AI Health Index awards Vera Health its top capability grade on AI Centrality and HIPAA and BAA Posture. Set against OpenEvidence, Vera Health grades higher on several axes, including Model and Technology Transparency, HIPAA and BAA Posture and AI Governance and Bias Disclosure. 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 OpenEvidence or Vera Health?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, OpenEvidence grades higher on Clinical and Operational Evidence, Security Certifications and Trust Center and EHR and Interoperability Depth, and Vera Health grades higher on several axes, including Model and Technology Transparency, HIPAA and BAA Posture and AI Governance and Bias Disclosure. Vera Health 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 OpenEvidence and Vera Health differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between OpenEvidence and Vera Health is on Clinical and Operational Evidence, where OpenEvidence grades B and Vera Health grades C. That axis sits in the AI Capability group, so it should carry the most weight for a buyer whose binding constraint is how much of the work the model itself is trusted to do.
Where do OpenEvidence and Vera Health grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades OpenEvidence and Vera Health 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 OpenEvidence and Vera Health not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of OpenEvidence and Vera Health 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.
Every performance figure Vera Health publishes is vendor generated and none is peer reviewed, including a 97.5 percent licensing examination score and a benchmark result, which measure examination performance rather than answer quality at the bedside. No electronic health record integration claim of any kind appears on Vera Health's own material, so this is a browser and mobile product rather than a workflow one.
OpenEvidence is funded by pharmaceutical and medical device advertising presented alongside clinical answers, governed by a published advertising policy that should be read before accepting the arrangement. Neither vendor publishes a bias or subgroup performance analysis of its generative layer.