SimpleSense vs OpenEvidence
Nanowear's blood pressure monitor was validated in a prospective multicentre study of 303 subjects over four weeks, with Nanowear authors and internal validation only. The company holds four 510(k) clearances, K161431 in 2016 through K232053 in December 2023, and sells a wearable to heart failure programs.
OpenEvidence goes to individual physicians, so no purchase decision connects the two. It answers clinical questions from cited literature, costs NPI-verified physicians nothing and is funded by advertising. Its security page states HIPAA compliance under a BAA, SOC 2 Type II, AES-256 at rest and an annual penetration test. The homepage and security page state no FDA status and no EHR integration. A 2026 observational study compared GPT-4o, Perplexity AI and OpenEvidence on radiology board-style questions, and a medRxiv pilot that is not peer reviewed reported 31% accuracy for quick search on subspecialty scenarios.
Decision support · Reviewed November 2, 2026
SimpleSense
by Nanowear · founded 2014
Cloth wearable with 510(k) cleared AI cloud analytics for remote cardiac monitoring and cuffless blood pressure.
OpenEvidence
by OpenEvidence · founded 2022
Free physician-only literature-grounded Q&A, 1M consults/day.
When to pick each one
SimpleSense
- Prospective study, 303 subjects over four weeks
- Four 510(k) numbers from K161431 to K232053
OpenEvidence
- Free for NPI-verified physicians, ad-funded
- Cited answers from medical literature and guidelines
- Annual penetration test and AES-256 at rest
Score
Each row shows points earned of points available under the published rubric.
SimpleSense
49of 100
OpenEvidence
52of 100
| Dimension | SimpleSense | OpenEvidence | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA clearance | 12 / 12 | 0 / 12 | +12 |
| 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 | 14.7 / 21 | 21 / 21 | -6.3 |
| RCT / meta-analysis / systematic review | 4.5 / 9 | 4.5 / 9 | 0 |
| 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
SimpleSense
| 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
SimpleSense
FDA decisions
K232053 (opens in new tab)510(k)2023-12-08
SimpleSense-BP, SimpleSense-BP Software Application
K212160 (opens in new tab)510(k)2021-09-22
SimpleSENSE Platform
K201669 (opens in new tab)510(k)2020-11-06
SimpleSENSE
K161431 (opens in new tab)510(k)2016-11-30
SimplECG
Peer-reviewed
3 PubMed records name SimpleSense.
- Multiparametric cloth-based wearable, SimpleSense, estimates blood pressure. (opens in new tab)
- Development and Internal Validation of an AI-Enabled Cuff-less, Non-invasive Continuous Blood Pressure Monitor Across All Classes of Hypertension. (opens in new tab)
- Nanotechnology and Artificial Intelligence: An Emerging Paradigm for Postoperative Patient Care. (opens in new tab)
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 | SimpleSense | 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.