OpenEvidence vs PaceMate
A family physician, hospitalist or resident who wants cited answers to clinical questions uses OpenEvidence. It is free to a verified US physician and ad-funded, with press reporting that most of its revenue is pharmaceutical advertising. Its security page states SOC 2 Type II and a standard BAA for PHI, and the vendor lists NEJM, JAMA and NCCN content partnerships. Reddit users have reported a wrong chest x-ray and pulmonary embolism answer and a drift toward certain journals.
PaceMate goes to an electrophysiology clinic that works through remote alerts from implanted cardiac devices. The vendor says its EHR links with Epic and Oracle Health are bi-directional and that athenahealth runs through a FHIR API. It also claims Auto-Triage cut loop recorder false-positive alerts by 73%. The pricing page shows Software, Flexible, Premium and Elite tiers with no amounts.
These two answer different questions for different clinics.
Decision support · Reviewed November 2, 2026
OpenEvidence
by OpenEvidence · founded 2022
Free physician-only literature-grounded Q&A, 1M consults/day.
PaceMate
by PaceMate
Cardiac device remote monitoring platform whose Auto-Triage ranks device alerts by clinical priority for device clinics.
When to pick each one
OpenEvidence
- Free for NPI-verified physicians, ad-funded
- SOC 2 Type II and a standard BAA
- Cited answers with NEJM and JAMA partners
PaceMate
- Vendor says Epic, Oracle Health and athenahealth links
- Auto-Triage ranks cardiac device alerts
- Four tiers, no amounts shown
Score
Each row shows points earned of points available under the published rubric.
OpenEvidence
52of 100
PaceMate
47of 100
| Dimension | OpenEvidence | PaceMate | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA clearance | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 | 0 |
| HIPAA / SOC2 / BAA | 0 / 10 | 10 / 10 | -10 |
| EHR integrations (count) | 0 / 5.6 | 1.7 / 5.6 | -1.7 |
| Top-3 EHR coverage (Epic / Oracle / Athena) | 0 / 4.8 | 4.8 / 4.8 | -4.8 |
| Bidirectional write-back | 0 / 1.2 | 0 / 1.2 | 0 |
| Peer-reviewed papers | 21 / 21 | 14.7 / 21 | +6.3 |
| RCT / meta-analysis / systematic review | 4.5 / 9 | 4.5 / 9 | 0 |
| Funding & adoption signal | 12 / 12 | 3 / 12 | +9 |
| Pricing transparency | 2.5 / 2.5 | 1.3 / 2.5 | +1.3 |
| Years in market | 4.2 / 6 | 0 / 6 | +4.2 |
Scroll horizontally to see every column.
Pricing
OpenEvidence
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plan | n/a | n/a | Free for NPI-verified physicians (ad-funded). |
PaceMate
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | n/a | n/a | No public price. |
Evidence
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.
PaceMate
FDA decisions
No FDA decision cited in our research as of November 2, 2026.
Peer-reviewed
3 PubMed records name PaceMate.
Compliance and integrations
Documented from each vendor’s own pages.
| Spec | OpenEvidence | PaceMate |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | ||
| HIPAA | ||
| SOC 2 Type II | ||
| EHR integrations | Not specified | Epic, Oracle Health, athenahealth |
| Founded | 2022 | n/a |
| HQ | US | n/a |
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.