Nabla vs OpenEvidence
A side-by-side look at scores, pricing and features — with RECATOOLS' ASEAN-aware verdict for each.
Nabla
Ambient AI scribe that turns patient visits into clinical notes.
Visit
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| RECATOOLS Score | 8.2 / 10 | 7.8 / 10 |
| Capability | ||
| Value for money | ||
| Ease of use | ||
| ASEAN readiness | ||
| API quality | ||
| Pricing | Freemium | Freemium |
| Free tier | Free trial available with core documentation features and limited usage | Free for all verified US clinicians (NPI required); ad-supported |
| Paid from | Free tier (up to 30 consultations/mo); Pro ~$119/month (unlimited); enterprise via contract | Enterprise tier in development; pricing undisclosed — contact sales |
| Has API | ✓ | ✗ |
| Open source | ✗ | ✗ |
| Free to use | ✗ | ✓ |
| Users | 85,000+ clinicians across 150+ health organisations (mid-2025) | ~860,000 verified US clinicians (June 2026) |
| Founded | 2018 | 2022 |
| Maker | Nabla Technologies | Daniel Nadler (CEO), Zachary Ziegler (CTO) |
| Verdict | Nabla has the best clinical evidence in ambient scribing: a NEJM AI randomized trial across 238 physicians and 48,000+ visits found a statistically significant 9.5% cut in documentation time. Real deployments back it up... |
OpenEvidence is genuinely useful for US clinicians: free, citation-backed answers pulled from NEJM, JAMA, and AMA guidelines, funded by pharma advertising instead of subscriptions. Growth has been extraordinary — over 69... |
| Full review → | Full review → |
← Back to AI Directory
Comparisons cover up to 4 tools. Scores are RECATOOLS editorial assessments; verify current pricing on each vendor's site.