OpenEvidence
Clinical decision-support AI for US physicians — NPI-verified medical-literature search, evidence-grounded clinical answers and physician-workflow surfaces (Coding Intelligence, Dialer, clinical-trial matching) with NEJM and JAMA / AMA content partnerships, deployed across 760K+ verified US physicians and serving 20M+ clinical consultations per month.
The Business
OpenEvidence builds clinical decision-support AI for US physicians — an NPI-verified evidence-grounded medical-literature search and clinical-question-answering surface, with content licences from the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Medical Association (JAMA family) that anchor the source-of-truth frame for clinical queries. The company was founded in 2021 in Cambridge, Massachusetts by Daniel Nadler PhD (founder-CEO; previously founder of Kensho Technologies, which S&P Global acquired in 2018) and built on a clinical-NLP and structured-data extraction stack reinforced by the Mendel.ai acquisition completed prior to the February 2025 Series B. Product surface spans the medical-literature search core, the Coding Intelligence ICD-10 / CPT module (launched Q1 2026), the Dialer pharma-engagement surface and the clinical-trial matching module previewed at J.P. Morgan Healthcare 2026. By the January 2026 Series D OpenEvidence had raised approximately $700M cumulatively at a $12B post-money valuation across four priced rounds in twelve months (Series B February 2025 at ~$3.5B; Series C September 2025 at ~$6B; Series D January 2026 at $12B), with Thrive Capital, DST Global, Google Ventures, NVIDIA NVentures, Sequoia, Blackstone, Kleiner Perkins, Craft Ventures and Mayo Clinic on the cap table.
Customers and Distribution
OpenEvidence serves 760K+ NPI-verified US physicians registered as of December 2025 — 40% of US physicians per CNBC coverage of the January 2026 Series D, and as high as 65% per AI2Work analysis — with 20M+ clinical consultations per month (January 2026 print) and the 1M-consultation single-day milestone reached on 10 March 2026. The company is free at point-of-use for NPI-verified US physicians and monetises through a pharmaceutical-CPM advertising stack — structurally differentiated against the UpToDate and DynaMed institutional-subscription model. Revenue trajectory anchors at ~$7.9M ARR (2024) to ~$150M ARR (2025) per Sacra — an approximately 19x increase characterised as the fastest-growing physician application in history, on a four-year-old company — with the P1d time-to-revenue stage-appropriateness sub-rubric scoring 10 on this evidence. Distribution rides direct-to-physician NPI-verified registration as the primary channel, with NEJM and JAMA / AMA content licences as the content-trust frame and the workflow-surface extensions (Coding Intelligence, Dialer, clinical-trial matching) as the GTM-surface extensions. The 100% US footprint is a deliberate concentration: no UK / EU / APAC physician expansion has been announced, and the pharma-CPM monetisation model is structurally US-specific.
Model Strategy
OpenEvidence’s defining technical asset is the evidence-grounding stack — an NPI-verified physician-workflow surface backed by NEJM and JAMA / AMA content licences and a clinical-NLP layer reinforced by the Mendel.ai acquisition, with structured retrieval-augmented generation routing across external foundation models. The D1c portability-and-substitutability sub-rubric scores 7 on this evidence: switching cost for individual MD users is low (free at point-of-use) but the pharma-buyer relationships and the NPI-verified physician installed-base are highly sticky once registered, with the NEJM and JAMA / AMA content licences as the content-moat layer that consumer-search players cannot replicate. Foundation-model strategy is multi-FM in posture (external foundation models combined with internal retrieval-augmented generation and embedding infrastructure); NVIDIA NVentures on the cap table is the disclosed strategic-infrastructure partner, with the D4a supplier-diversity sub-rubric scoring 6 on this evidence with an [INFERRED] flag pending fresh hyperscaler and FM-routing disclosure. Infrastructure is HIPAA-compliant by explicit design, with stated compliance posture against HIPAA, GDPR and medical-device regulations per the company’s strategic-analysis materials; the D4c regulatory-exposure sub-rubric scores 5 against the novel clinical-decision-support-plus-pharma-advertising regulatory category, with FTC / FDA / state-medical-board attention inevitable and the Coding Intelligence ICD-10 / CPT module additionally raising CMS billing-fraud surface area. No FDA clearance is disclosed on the clinical-decision-support surface at time of writing.
At A Glance
The Numbers
Annualised revenue
Headcount (FTE)
Funding to date
Leadership Team
Two leadership entries on this page were corrected at fact-check — Zachary Ziegler is Chief Technology Officer (not Chief Medical Officer), and Travis Zack MD is the actual Chief Medical Officer. A prior "Travis May, Head of Product" entry was removed as it appears to have been a fabrication (Travis May is the founder of Datavant, not at OpenEvidence). Daniel Nadler remains the operational founder-CEO and public-facing figure; the D4e key-person-dependency sub-rubric scores 5 on a structure where the C-suite layer below the founder-CEO is materially less publicly disclosed than at later-stage peers such as Abridge (CTO, COO, CCO, CFO all named in April 2026). Further public C-suite disclosure — particularly a named CTO and a named CFO — would reduce the founder-CEO concentration and lift the bench-depth print at the next evidence pass.
IM Framework Scoring
IM’s structured assessment of OpenEvidence’s competitive position. The summary below is the headline; expand “Show the full analyst-grade analysis” near the bottom for the per-dimension reasoning and evidence. Methodology →
Funding History
| Date | Round | Raised | Post-money | Lead investor(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2026 | Series D | $250M | $12.0B | Thrive Capital, DST Global |
| Sep 2025 | Series C | $210M | ~$6.0B | Google Ventures, Kleiner Perkins |
| Feb 2025 | Series B | $75M | ~$3.5B | Sequoia Capital |
| 2024 | Series A | $75M | ~$1.0B | Sequoia Capital |
| 2022 | Seed / early | Undisclosed | — | Breyer Capital, Sequoia Capital |
| 2022-2024 | Seed financings | ~$90M (Breyer Capital, Sequoia, undisclosed extensions) | — | Cumulative gap between disclosed Series A/B/C/D $610M and total $700M = ~$90M of undisclosed seed-stage capital per Crunchbase News |
Cumulative ~$700M raised through the January 2026 Series D at $12B post-money — four priced rounds in twelve months (Series B February 2025 at ~$3.5B; Series C September 2025 at ~$6B; Series D January 2026 at $12B), an approximately 3.4x valuation step from Series B to Series D. The cap table spans Thrive Capital, DST Global, Google Ventures, NVIDIA NVentures, Sequoia Capital, Blackstone, Kleiner Perkins, Craft Ventures and Mayo Clinic. Round-by-round figures from CNBC, BusinessWire, PR Newswire, Fierce Healthcare and AI Business Review coverage of the Series D announcement, with earlier-round figures from PR Newswire and Fierce Healthcare. The Mendel.ai acquisition (completed prior to the Series B) underpinned the clinical-NLP and structured-data extraction stack.
Competitive Landscape
OpenEvidence’s competitive set sits in three concentric rings: the incumbent US clinical-reference platforms (UpToDate / Wolters Kluwer and DynaMed / EBSCO) that OpenEvidence is positioning to displace as the default first-look surface for US physicians, adjacent independent healthcare-AI plays in the ambient-documentation and patient-facing-agent lanes (Abridge and Hippocratic AI), and the foundation-model-provider vertical extension (Cohere’s North for Healthcare) that could bundle clinical-reference capabilities into a broader health-system AI stack. The standout competitive cut is the UpToDate / DynaMed displacement bet on US physician attention-share, supported by the NEJM and JAMA / AMA content-partnership content moat.
| Competitor | Positioning | Distribution edge | Threat profile |
|---|---|---|---|
| UpToDate (Wolters Kluwer (NYSE: WTKWY)) |
The incumbent US clinical-reference platform — physician-authored evidence summaries, graded recommendations and topic-level clinical guidance grounded in two decades of editorial process and a paid subscription model. Used by 2M+ clinicians globally with deep US health-system institutional licences. | Direct institutional licensing through US health systems and US medical schools; deeply embedded in physician training pathways and residency programs as the default clinical-reference surface. | High — the symmetric incumbent on US physician procurement; the deepest reference-grade content moat plus the institutional-subscription contract footprint that OpenEvidence is positioning to displace as the default first-look surface. |
| DynaMed (EBSCO Information Services) |
The other major US clinical-reference platform — evidence-graded topic summaries with daily updates and a clinician-authored editorial process; competes head-to-head with UpToDate on US health-system institutional licences and on physician training-pathway adoption. | Direct institutional licensing through US health systems and the EBSCO library-services channel; embedded in US medical-school library subscriptions alongside the broader EBSCO research-database footprint. | High — same channel logic as UpToDate; the second incumbent in the displacement bet OpenEvidence is making on the subscription-reference layer. |
| Abridge | Ambient AI clinical documentation grounded in the Contextual Reasoning Engine and Ghostwriter platform, with deep Epic Hyperdrive / Haiku and Oracle Cerner integration; the category-leading independent vertical-AI play in the adjacent ambient-clinical-documentation lane. | 200+ US health-system installed base including UPMC scaling to 12,000 clinicians and Kaiser Permanente’s industry-largest generative-AI deployment; direct-to-health-system enterprise GTM under a mature commercial function. | Medium — adjacent surface rather than direct head-to-head, but competes for the same physician attention-share and the same US health-system AI procurement budget; convergence risk if Abridge extends from documentation into clinical-reference surfaces. |
| Hippocratic AI | Patient-facing healthcare AI agents for non-diagnostic tasks (chronic-care check-ins, post-discharge follow-up, pre-visit triage) with a safety-tuned LLM stack and a constellation of nurse-supervisor partnerships. | Direct to US health systems and payer plans, with named partnerships across major health systems for non-diagnostic patient-engagement use cases; positioned for the patient-facing lane rather than the physician-facing lane. | Low — medium — adjacent rather than direct; the flanking risk is that patient-facing AI agents subsume some of the clinical-reference attention-share that OpenEvidence relies on at the physician layer. |
| Cohere Healthcare (North for Healthcare) (Cohere) |
Cohere’s healthcare-vertical extension of the North enterprise-AI platform — healthcare-domain-tuned LLM stack for clinical-knowledge work, with a foundation-model-provider GTM rather than a clinician-facing destination GTM. | Cohere’s enterprise GTM into US health systems and life-sciences customers, leveraging the broader North platform and the Cohere foundation-model relationships rather than direct-to-physician distribution. | Medium — not a like-for-like competitor but a foundation-model-provider vertical extension that could bundle clinical-reference capabilities into a broader health-system AI stack at a price point OpenEvidence cannot match standalone. |
Pricing benchmark: OpenEvidence is free at point-of-use for NPI-verified US physicians, monetised through a pharmaceutical-CPM advertising stack rather than per-physician subscriptions — structurally differentiated against the UpToDate and DynaMed institutional-subscription model (reported list pricing in the $500-1,200 / physician / year range for the named-incumbent set, with US health-system institutional licences negotiated separately). The competitive cut is on NPI-verified physician registration footprint, NEJM and JAMA / AMA content licences, pharma-CPM monetisation maturity and the workflow-surface extensions (Coding Intelligence, Dialer, clinical-trial matching) rather than headline subscription price.
Potential Risks
The case for OpenEvidence at IM Framework 6.92 rests on the top-decile capital position (~$700M cumulative raised at $12B post-money), the NPI-verified physician registration footprint (40-65% of US physicians; 760K+ registered NPIs; 20M+ consultations per month; 1M-consultation single-day milestone in March 2026), the NEJM and JAMA / AMA content-partnership content moat, and the ~19x ARR growth from 2024 to 2025 (~$7.9M to ~$150M per Sacra). The case against splits into five risks of differing magnitude — with the pharma-CPM monetisation surface against FTC / FDA scrutiny the most structural framing constraint, and the UpToDate / DynaMed symmetric-incumbent head-to-head the most active competitive cut.
Pharma-CPM monetisation under FTC / FDA scrutiny on clinical-decision-support advertising
OpenEvidence’s economic engine is pharmaceutical-CPM advertising surfaced inside a clinical-decision-support workflow — a novel regulatory category that the D4c regulatory-exposure sub-rubric scores 5 on. FTC scrutiny on health-claims advertising, FDA scrutiny on clinical-decision-support claims and state-medical-board attention on physician-targeted promotional surfaces are the operational constraint; the absence of disclosed FDA clearance on the clinical-decision-support surface is the residual-risk source. The Coding Intelligence ICD-10 / CPT module additionally raises CMS billing-fraud surface area, with the regulatory perimeter still being defined for AI-assisted medical coding.
Symmetric-incumbent head-to-head — UpToDate and DynaMed on US physician procurement and US medical-school training pathways
Wolters Kluwer’s UpToDate and EBSCO’s DynaMed remain the deeply-embedded clinical-reference platforms inside US health-system institutional licences and US medical-school training pathways. OpenEvidence is positioning to displace this layer as the default first-look surface for US physicians, with the NEJM and JAMA / AMA content-partnership content moat and the free-at-point-of-use NPI-verified physician registration as the wedge. The risk is procurement-cycle defaulting to the incumbent on multi-year institutional renewals and the long-cycle nature of clinical-reference-platform displacement at the US health-system level.
Valuation-to-revenue ratio and 2026 capital-markets compression risk
$12B post-money on a ~$150M ARR 2025 print is approximately 80x — a premium multiple justified by the ~19x ARR growth from $7.9M in 2024 and the four-rounds-in-twelve-months velocity, but with material compression risk if the implied 2026 ARR trajectory slows or if UpToDate / DynaMed materially close the AI-evidence-grounding gap. The four rounds in twelve months (Series B February 2025 at ~$3.5B, Series C September 2025 at ~$6B, Series D January 2026 at $12B) reset the multiple aggressively each time; the next priced round will reset the multiple against a higher-ARR base and a more crowded competitive set.
Founder-CEO concentration and below-founder C-suite disclosure gap
Daniel Nadler remains the public operational founder-CEO and the central scientific-and-strategic narrator on every external announcement. The D4e key-person-dependency sub-rubric scores 5 on a structure where the C-suite layer below the founder is materially less publicly disclosed than at later-stage peers such as Abridge (CTO, COO, CCO, CFO all named in April 2026). Further public C-suite disclosure — particularly a named CTO and a named CFO — would reduce the founder-CEO concentration and lift the bench-depth print at the next evidence pass.
Single-customer-segment concentration — NPI-verified US physicians only
OpenEvidence’s installed base and product surface are concentrated on NPI-verified US physicians; no UK / EU / APAC physician footprint has been announced and no non-physician segment (pharmacists, nurse practitioners outside the US scope, residents-only deployments) is disclosed as a separate GTM motion. The D4f sub-rubric scores 9 on the deliberate US-physician concentration that is consistent with the apps_vertical bet, but the residual risk is that the pharma-CPM monetisation model and the workflow-surface extensions (Coding Intelligence, Dialer, clinical-trial matching) are structurally US-specific and do not port to international physician populations or to adjacent clinician segments without material rebuild.
Recent IM Coverage
Show recent press coverage of OpenEvidence
- Jan 2026 — OpenEvidence triples valuation to $12B after physician AI clinical-decision-support raise.
- Jan 2026 — OpenEvidence closes $250M Series D led by Thrive Capital and DST Global.
- Mar 2026 — OpenEvidence delivers 1 million clinical consultations to US physicians in a single day — 10 March 2026 milestone.
- Sep 2025 — OpenEvidence raises $210M Series C at $6B valuation led by Google Ventures and Kleiner Perkins.
- Feb 2026 — OpenEvidence launches Dialer pharma-engagement surface and Coding Intelligence ICD-10 / CPT module.
- Jan 2026 — OpenEvidence at J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference 2026 — clinical-trial matching module preview.
- 2026 — OpenEvidence company profile and ARR trajectory analysis — $7.9M (2024) to $150M (2025).
- Jan 2026 — How OpenEvidence reached 40% of US physicians — a profile of Daniel Nadler.
Curated feed of named-source coverage from approved publications — tier-1 tech and broadcast press (CNBC, NBC News), healthcare-IT named-author press (Fierce Healthcare), the company’s own announcement wires (BusinessWire, PR Newswire) and analyst-research disclosures (Sacra free company profile). We exclude PR-wire reposts of the same release and unsourced “industry round-up” pieces.
Show the source register for the figures on this page
IM operates a primary-source-where-possible discipline. The figures above come from:
- Revenue — ARR trajectory: Sacra company profile records the ARR trajectory at ~$7.9M (2024) to ~$150M (2025) — an approximately 19x increase, characterised by Sacra as the fastest-growing physician application in history — see Sacra OpenEvidence profile. OpenEvidence has not separately disclosed a primary ARR figure for FY2026 at time of writing; the Series D announcement at $12B implied continued trajectory but did not publish a fresh ARR print.
- Customer base — NPI-verified physicians and consultation volume: OpenEvidence discloses 760K+ NPI-verified US physicians registered (December 2025), 40% of US physicians per CNBC coverage of the Series D (and 65% per AI2Work analysis), 20M+ clinical consultations per month (January 2026) and the 1M-consultation single-day milestone on 10 March 2026 per PR Newswire. NEJM and JAMA / AMA content partnerships per the OpenEvidence website.
- Leadership — founder-CEO and named C-suite layer: Founder and CEO Daniel Nadler PhD (previously founder of Kensho Technologies, acquired by S&P Global in 2018) per CEO Today profile and the OpenEvidence Wikipedia entry. C-suite layer below the founder-CEO is less publicly disclosed than at later-stage peers; further public C-suite disclosure would lift the bench-depth print at the next evidence pass.
- Funding to date — ~$700M raised at $12B post-money: $250M Series D January 2026 at $12B post-money led by Thrive Capital and DST Global per CNBC and BusinessWire. Earlier-round figures — $210M Series C September 2025 at ~$6B led by Google Ventures and Kleiner Perkins per PR Newswire; $75M Series B February 2025 at ~$3.5B led by Sequoia Capital per Fierce Healthcare. Cap table includes NVIDIA NVentures, Blackstone, Craft Ventures and Mayo Clinic.
Methodology & Disclaimer
For metric definitions, source-tier hierarchy, and decline-to-publish rules, see the tracker methodology. Confidence dots (• green / • amber / • red) follow the same convention as the AI Tracker.
Spotted a figure you believe is wrong? Send corrections to info@informationmatters.net.
Information Matters Framework scores are the considered opinion of the IM team — human and AI — applied to publicly-available evidence under a disclosed methodology. They are not statements of fact about the companies scored and they are not investment advice.
