KATE vs OpenEvidence
Mednition sells KATE to hospitals as an enterprise purchase for the ED, with no public price and an ROI calculator on the site. The vendor names Adventist Health White Memorial and Adventist Health Glendale as customers. OpenEvidence is a literature tool that an individual physician can use free.
It costs an NPI-verified physician nothing and is funded by advertising, mostly pharmaceutical according to secondary reports. Its security page states HIPAA compliance with a standard BAA and SOC 2 Type II for the Security category, and the site shows NEJM and JAMA content partnerships. One r/emergencymedicine poster reported an inaccurate chest x-ray and pulmonary embolism answer, and one r/Residency poster reported a bias toward certain journals. A November 2025 medRxiv preprint pilot, not peer reviewed, scored 31% accuracy for quick search and 39.5% for Deep Consult on subspecialty scenarios.
Decision support · Reviewed November 2, 2026
KATE
by Mednition · founded 2014
KATE AI recommends emergency department triage acuity and flags sepsis risk from EHR data at triage.
OpenEvidence
by OpenEvidence · founded 2022
Free physician-only literature-grounded Q&A, 1M consults/day.
When to pick each one
KATE
- Enterprise purchase with an ROI calculator
- Adventist Health White Memorial and Glendale named as customers
OpenEvidence
- Costs NPI-verified physicians nothing, ad-funded
- HIPAA with BAA and SOC 2 Type II stated
- NEJM and JAMA content partnerships
Score
Each row shows points earned of points available under the published rubric.
KATE
12of 100
OpenEvidence
52of 100
| Dimension | KATE | OpenEvidence | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA clearance | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 | 0 |
| HIPAA / SOC2 / BAA | 0 / 10 | 0 / 10 | 0 |
| EHR integrations (count) | 0 / 5.6 | 0 / 5.6 | 0 |
| Top-3 EHR coverage (Epic / Oracle / Athena) | 0 / 4.8 | 0 / 4.8 | 0 |
| Bidirectional write-back | 0 / 1.2 | 0 / 1.2 | 0 |
| Peer-reviewed papers | 0 / 21 | 21 / 21 | -21 |
| RCT / meta-analysis / systematic review | 0 / 9 | 4.5 / 9 | -4.5 |
| Funding & adoption signal | 3 / 12 | 12 / 12 | -9 |
| Pricing transparency | 1.3 / 2.5 | 2.5 / 2.5 | -1.2 |
| Years in market | 6 / 6 | 4.2 / 6 | +1.8 |
Scroll horizontally to see every column.
Pricing
KATE
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | n/a | n/a | No public price. |
OpenEvidence
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plan | n/a | n/a | Free for NPI-verified physicians (ad-funded). |
Evidence
KATE
FDA decisions
No FDA decision cited in our research as of November 2, 2026.
OpenEvidence
FDA decisions
No FDA decision cited in our research as of October 20, 2026.
Peer-reviewed
5 PubMed records name OpenEvidence.
- Performance of Large Language Models on Diagnostic Radiology Board-Style Questions: A Comparative Evaluation of GPT-4o, Perplexity AI, and OpenEvidence. (opens in new tab)
- OpenEvidence. (opens in new tab)
- Concordance of ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and OpenEvidence with the 2024 AAOS guidelines on acute isolated meniscal pathology. (opens in new tab)
Community
20 posts sourced: 3 positive, 14 neutral, 3 negative.
Compliance and integrations
Documented from each vendor’s own pages.
| Spec | KATE | OpenEvidence |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | ||
| HIPAA | ||
| SOC 2 Type II | ||
| EHR integrations | Not specified | Not specified |
| Founded | 2014 | 2022 |
| HQ | US | US |
Scroll horizontally to see both columns.
Common questions
Open the full decision support comparison
Differential diagnosis, treatment guidance, drug interactions, evidence-grounded Q&A. The CDS landscape ranges from the UpToDate gold standard to physician-only OpenEvidence. We compared what clinicians actually use.