Right AI for the Job
Home › Tools › Consensus vs OpenEvidence
Updated 4 September 2026 · Independent comparison

Consensus vs OpenEvidence:
which should you use?

Consensus and OpenEvidence, side by side. Find the one that fits what you need to do.

Find your best fit

The 30-second answer

Consensus is built for search, research & academics. OpenEvidence is built for search, research & academics.

Pricing, simplified

Start free. Upgrade when you need more.

2 of 2 have a free plan 0 of 2 prices re-read automatically · how we know No paid placement

The 30-second comparison

If you only read one section, make it this one. Rows where both sides say the same thing are left out — the point is where they differ. Where each row came from is listed underneath.

Consensus and OpenEvidence side by side, with the better fit for each row.
CategoryConsensusOpenEvidenceBetter fit
What it's built forSearches published papers and tells you how many of them support a claim, which turns a yes-or-no question into a count you can inspect.Built for clinical literature. Answers cite primary medical research, and it is free for verified clinicians.Tie
Free planYes. Free plan at $0: basic paper search, 15 Pro messages a month and up to 3 Deep reviews a month, though the same card also describes the free tier as being without AI analysisYes. Free for verified clinicians, ad-supportedTie
Cheapest way to pay$20 a month.No paid tier — it is free.OpenEvidence
What the paid tiers cost
  • One person, from $20/month
No paid tier — it is free.Tie
What to watch out forThe consensus meter reflects the papers it found, not the state of the field. Deep reviews are the metered resource — 3 a month free, 15 on Pro, 200 on Deep — so that is what decides the tier rather than how much you search.Medicine only, and access is gated behind clinician verification. No use for a history or engineering student.Tie
Who it is usually forresearchers, studentsresearchers, working professionalsTie
Made byConsensus — Boston, US.OpenEvidence — Cambridge, US.Tie

OpenEvidence is ahead on 1 of the 7 rows compared — cheapest way to pay — and it is not about how well it does the job. On fitness for the work, it and Consensus are level. Treat this as a tiebreaker, not a recommendation.

Ahead on the small print

OpenEvidence

Built for clinical literature.

✓ Built for clinical literature. ✓ You would rather not take on a subscription at all ✓ You are among working professionals ✓ It is built for search, research & academics
Choose Consensus instead if…

Searches published papers and tells you how many of them support a claim, which turns a yes-or-no question into a count you can inspect.

Consensus is the better answer when the job is what it was built for rather than what the pick above does broadly.

✓ Searches published papers and tells you how many of them support a claim, which turns a yes-or-no question into a count you can inspect. ✓ You are among students ✓ It is built for search, research & academics ✓ Free plan at $0: basic paper search, 15 Pro messages a month and up to 3 Deep reviews a month, though the same card also describes the free tier as being without AI analysis

How we know

Every row that separated these two, and where it came from. Nothing here is a hands-on test — if a line rests on a vendor’s own pricing page, it says so and links it.

The 1 row that decided this page, with the source for each.
RowFavoursWeightWhere it came from
Cheapest way to payOpenEvidenceEverything elseFrom each vendor’s own pricing page. Dates and pages are listed below.

The prices

Consensus. Read by hand on 4 September 2026, because Consensus cannot be read automatically: Both consensus.app/pricing/ and the help-centre article return 200 with the plans drawn in JavaScript; the browser step found no amounts either. Runs 16, 17, 19 and 20 all agree. Priced by hand from the in-app upgrade panel, which is where the Individual plans are actually shown; the Team and Enterprise tab is still uncovered. consensus.app/pricing

OpenEvidence. Read by hand on 4 September 2026, because OpenEvidence cannot be read automatically: Free for verified clinicians, no paid tier — nothing priced to watch openevidence.com/pricing

The ratings

The category these two share. Search, Research & Academics — both are listed there in the catalogue, and the fit recorded against each listing is a judgement made here, by hand.

The nine-category grid below. Derived from what each product is listed for, by one script, once per build — so the same pair always reads the same. It is a derivation, not a review.

What this is not

Neither product was run side by side to produce this page. Nobody was paid to appear on it and nothing here is ranked by commission.

To put the same question to both and read the answers yourself, run them side by side — that is a live test, and this is not.

Choose based on what you’re doing

All ten categories, including the ones where neither of these is the answer. These ratings are derived from what each product is listed for, not from running it — a rating here is a reading of the record, and the record is linked.

01

General-Purpose AI Assistants

Questions, brainstorming, explanations, everyday tasks, decision-making, general advice.

Consensus
Not a good fit
OpenEvidence
Not a good fit
Best choice: Neither
02

Search, Research & Academics

Web research, deep research, books, academic papers, citations, news, fact-checking.

Consensus
Built for this
OpenEvidence
Built for this
Best choice: Tie
03

Writing, Communication & Language

Emails, reports, essays, editing, summarizing, translation, presentations.

Consensus
Not a good fit
OpenEvidence
Not a good fit
Best choice: Neither
04

Coding, Data & Technical Work

Programming, debugging, data analysis, spreadsheets, math, engineering, technical research.

Consensus
Bad fit
OpenEvidence
Bad fit
Best choice: Neither
05

Business, Finance & Professional Work

Business strategy, investing, market research, legal, sales, HR, accounting, consulting.

Consensus
Not a good fit
OpenEvidence
Not a good fit
Best choice: Neither
06

Image & Design

Image generation, photo editing, logos, graphics, product design, advertising creatives.

Consensus
Bad fit
OpenEvidence
Bad fit
Best choice: Neither
07

Video

Video generation and editing, clipping, subtitles, avatars, animation and motion capture.

Consensus
Bad fit
OpenEvidence
Bad fit
Best choice: Neither
08

Audio, Voice & Music

Voice generation, transcription, music, dubbing, sound cleanup and podcast production.

Consensus
Bad fit
OpenEvidence
Bad fit
Best choice: Neither
09

Marketing & Content Creation

Social media, SEO, advertising, copywriting, content ideas, scripts, brand development.

Consensus
Bad fit
OpenEvidence
Bad fit
Best choice: Neither
10

Productivity, Automation & Personal Life

AI agents, workflows, scheduling, meetings, organization, shopping, travel, personal finance.

Consensus
Not a good fit
OpenEvidence
Not a good fit
Best choice: Neither
Pick Consensus if

Searches published papers and tells you how many of them support a claim, which turns a yes-or-no question into a count you can inspect.

Boston, US
Searches published papers and tells you how many of them support a claim, which turns a yes-or-no question into a count you can inspect.
You are among students
It is built for search, research & academics
Free plan at $0: basic paper search, 15 Pro messages a month and up to 3 Deep reviews a month, though the same card also describes the free tier as being without AI analysis
Pick OpenEvidence if

Built for clinical literature.

Cambridge, US
Built for clinical literature.
You would rather not take on a subscription at all
You are among working professionals
It is built for search, research & academics

Pricing, simplified

The plans people actually compare, read from each vendor’s own page.

PricingSimple, up-to-date plan overview.
Consensusby Consensus
OpenEvidenceby OpenEvidence
Free version
Consensus
Yes — Free plan availableBasic paper search, 15 Pro messages a month and up to 3 Deep reviews a month
OpenEvidence
Yes — Free plan availableFree for verified clinicians, ad-supported
Individual plans
Consensus
Pro $20 / month$12 / month (annual)
Deep $65 / month$45 / month (annual)
OpenEvidenceFree plan only
Business plans
ConsensusNot sold to teams
OpenEvidenceNot sold to teams
Enterprise
ConsensusNot published
OpenEvidenceNot published
View full details
ConsensusView Consensus pricing
OpenEvidenceView OpenEvidence pricing
Interactive

Tell us what you use AI for

Pick your main job and the verdict below changes to match. Every answer is on the page already, so this works as a reader, not a lookup.

The verdict for that job
Evenly matched
Close call. Both cover search, research & academics at the same level; both have a free plan you can start on.
7 rows compared

Frequently asked questions

Is Consensus or OpenEvidence better?

OpenEvidence is ahead on 1 of the 7 rows compared — cheapest way to pay — and it is not about how well it does the job. On fitness for the work, it and Consensus are level. Treat this as a tiebreaker, not a recommendation. both have a free plan you can start on. Consensus: Searches published papers and tells you how many of them support a claim, which turns a yes-or-no question into a count you can inspect. OpenEvidence: Built for clinical literature. Answers cite primary medical research, and it is free for verified clinicians.

Is Consensus or OpenEvidence cheaper?

Only one of the two publishes a ladder we have verified, so a like-for-like comparison is not possible yet.

Do Consensus and OpenEvidence both have free plans?

Yes. Consensus: Free plan at $0: basic paper search, 15 Pro messages a month and up to 3 Deep reviews a month, though the same card also describes the free tier as being without AI analysis. OpenEvidence: Free for verified clinicians, ad-supported.

What should I watch out for?

Consensus: The consensus meter reflects the papers it found, not the state of the field. Deep reviews are the metered resource — 3 a month free, 15 on Pro, 200 on Deep — so that is what decides the tier rather than how much you search. OpenEvidence: Medicine only, and access is gated behind clinician verification. No use for a history or engineering student.

Read more

Consensus

What it is for, who makes it, what it costs and what to use instead.

OpenEvidence

What it is for, who makes it, what it costs and what to use instead.

Best AI for Research

Web research, deep research, books, academic papers, citations, news, fact-checking.

How we compare AI tools
Every row is generated from the same record the rest of the site is built on, so this page cannot drift from what we say elsewhere. We separate winner, tie and depends rather than forcing each category into a ranking, and we drop rows where both sides say the same thing. A pick is only called an overall pick when it leads on rows about how well the tool does the job; a lead that rests on price or audience alone is labelled as one. Nothing here is a hands-on test — how we know lists the source and date behind every deciding row.