Asha vs OpenEvidence: which medical AI is right for you?
OpenEvidence is the clinician-facing leader in evidence-based medical AI, with strong adoption among US physicians. Asha covers the same evidence quality bar and extends it: consumers and clinicians, a four-agent healthcare fleet, sacred refusals, and an open A2A API. Both tools are honest about their corpus. Choose the one whose audience and architecture fit your work.
TL;DR
OpenEvidence reports ~860,000 verified US clinicians on the platform (as of mid-2026), ~18M consultations/month in late 2025, and a $12B valuation after its January 2026 Series D. It is free for individual licensed clinicians (ad-supported by pharma) and is rolling out an enterprise tier integrated with Epic at Cedars-Sinai, Mount Sinai, and Sutter Health. Asha (DNAi Systems) covers the same evidence-grounding philosophy with several structural differences: a consumer-friendly UX in addition to clinician-grade depth, a four-agent healthcare fleet (Asha, Arohi, Lyra, Sage), sacred medical refusals enforced architecturally, a transparent corpus you can audit, and an open A2A API any developer can sign up for in minutes.
Side-by-side comparison
| Feature | Asha|AI | OpenEvidence |
|---|---|---|
| Target audience | Patients, caregivers, clinicians, students, researchers | Verified US clinicians only (free tier requires NPI verification) |
| Founded by | Two board-certified physicians (Deepan Singh MD, Paridhi Anand MD) | Daniel Nadler (PhD, founder) |
| Founded | 2024 (DNAi Systems) | 2022 (per Crunchbase) |
| Evidence corpus | PubMed, OpenAlex (~16.5M top-cited), PMC fulltext, StatPearls, DailyMed, FDA, clinical guidelines, ~126M total knowledge vectors | Peer-reviewed medical journals and clinical guidelines (corpus details proprietary) |
| Sacred medical refusals | Architecturally enforced (prescriptions, dosing, diagnosis) | Clinician-context tool; refusal posture is not the primary design |
| Fleet breadth | Asha (patient + clinician), Arohi (practice mgmt), Lyra (research), Sage (nutrition) | OpenEvidence single product with planned Open Vista trial-matching extension |
| API access for developers | A2A protocol; self-serve API key in minutes | Enterprise EHR partnerships (Epic FHIR pilots); no public self-serve API |
| Voice mode | Voice in + out | Hands-free Voice Mode launched 2026 |
| Consumer pricing | Free (100/mo); Pro $14.99/mo or $9.99/mo annual; 30-day free trial | Not available to non-clinicians |
| Clinician pricing | Free tier or $9.99/mo | Free for verified clinicians (ad-supported) |
| Enterprise pricing | A2A tiers ($49 Developer, $199 Pro, $999 Enterprise) | Per-seat enterprise tier in development (non-ad-supported) |
| Funding | Bootstrapped / founder-funded (DNAi Systems) | ~$700M total across 2025-2026 rounds; $12B valuation |
| Business model | User subscription + A2A API tier; no ads | Pharma advertising on free tier; enterprise per-seat in development |
When to choose OpenEvidence
OpenEvidence has earned its position as the clinician-AI category leader. Choose it when:
- You are a US-licensed clinician and want a free, ad-supported tool with very high adoption among your peers.
- Your hospital or health system is integrating into Epic via the OpenEvidence enterprise pilots.
- Voice mode at the point of care is the primary workflow you want.
- You are comfortable with a pharma-advertising business model on the free tier.
- You want a tool whose entire product surface is clinician-context (no patient-facing UX to switch between).
When to choose Asha
Asha was designed around a different center of gravity: a fiduciary architecture that protects the user, whether the user is a patient or a clinician. Choose Asha when:
- You want a tool that serves patients AND clinicians from the same fleet, with role-appropriate context.
- You are a developer who wants to embed medical AI in your own app via a public A2A API.
- You need cross-domain healthcare: research synthesis (Lyra), practice management (Arohi), nutrition (Sage), and clinical Q&A (Asha) under one architecture.
- You prefer a subscription business model with no advertising (pharma or otherwise) influencing answers.
- You value architectural refusals on prescription and dosing requests as a feature, not a bug.
- You want a transparent, auditable corpus you can inspect collection-by-collection.
Specific use cases
Point-of-care clinical question (hospital floor)
OpenEvidence: Strong fit. Voice mode, NPI-gated, very high peer adoption, increasingly embedded in Epic at participating health systems.
Asha: Also fits, with citation discipline plus sacred refusals. Free for individual clinicians at the same price point.
Patient researching a new diagnosis
OpenEvidence: Not the audience; free tier requires clinician verification.
Asha: Designed for this. Patient-appropriate language, sacred refusals on diagnostic claims, citations to the same evidence base a clinician would use.
Developer building a healthcare app
OpenEvidence: Enterprise partnership conversation (Epic FHIR pilots). No public self-serve API as of mid-2026.
Asha: A2A API self-serve signup. Free tier (50 queries/mo) and paid tiers up to Enterprise ($999/mo unlimited).
Practice manager scheduling and billing
OpenEvidence: Out of scope; the product is clinical reference.
Asha: Arohi (the practice-management agent in the DNAi fleet) covers this. Same architecture, different role.
Pricing breakdown
OpenEvidence is free for verified US clinicians on the ad-supported tier, with a non-ad-supported enterprise tier in development for hospital systems (per CEO Daniel Nadler in May 2026 reporting). Asha's consumer pricing is Free (100 queries/month) or $9.99/month for unlimited. Asha's A2A API tiers are $49 Developer, $199 Pro, $999 Enterprise. The structural difference: OpenEvidence is "free for the doctor, paid by pharma ads"; Asha is "paid by the user, no ads, no pharma influence on answer ranking." Both are honest postures. Choose whichever fits your ethics on advertising in clinical decision support.
Frequently asked questions
Is OpenEvidence free for non-clinicians?
No. As of mid-2026, OpenEvidence's free tier requires verified clinician status (MD, DO, NP, PA, etc.) in the US. Patients and caregivers cannot sign up directly. Asha is open to anyone with a web browser.
How does OpenEvidence make money?
Pharmaceutical advertising on the free clinician tier, per their public disclosures and CEO Daniel Nadler's interviews. An enterprise tier (Cedars-Sinai, Mount Sinai, Sutter Health) is being rolled out as a non-ad-supported per-seat option. Asha has no ads; revenue comes from $9.99/mo consumer plans and A2A API tiers.
Can I get an API key for OpenEvidence?
Not as a self-serve developer signup, based on public information as of mid-2026. OpenEvidence's developer integration story today centers on Epic FHIR pilots at partner health systems. Asha's A2A API is self-serve at app.askasha.org/api.
Does OpenEvidence refuse prescription requests?
OpenEvidence is positioned as a clinician decision-support tool, so dosing and prescribing context is part of the expected output for licensed users. Asha is a fiduciary agent for everyone and refuses prescription, dosing, and definitive diagnostic requests architecturally.
Are both tools HIPAA-aware?
OpenEvidence operates a HIPAA-conservative posture on the clinician platform. Asha runs PHI anonymization, zero retention on the AI provider, and a BAA-covered Vertex AI Gemini backbone. Both should be evaluated against your organization's specific BAA requirements before clinical deployment.