OpenEvidenceFree plan
Pricing
No verified ladder yet
View plans and limitsUpdated 4 September 2026 · Independent comparison
OpenEvidence vs Scite:
which should you use?
OpenEvidence and Scite, side by side. Find the one that fits what you need to do.
Find your best fitThe 30-second answer
OpenEvidence is built for search, research & academics.
Scite is built for search, research & academics.
Pricing, simplified
Start free. Upgrade when you need more.
SciteFree plan
Paid from
$20 a month
View plans and limitsThe 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.
| Category | OpenEvidence | Scite | Better fit |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it's built for | Built for clinical literature. Answers cite primary medical research, and it is free for verified clinicians. | Shows whether later papers supported or contradicted the one you are reading. Nothing else on this site answers that question. | Tie |
| Free plan | Yes. Free for verified clinicians, ad-supported | Yes. Connect, free and without a card: 25 MCP credits a month to use Scite inside ChatGPT, Claude and other AI tools, grounded in more than 300 million papers. It is a connector rather than a cut-down platform — the Assistant and Search are not included at all | Tie |
| Cheapest way to pay | No paid tier — it is free. | $20 a month. | OpenEvidence |
| What the paid tiers cost | No paid tier — it is free. |
| Tie |
| What to watch out for | Medicine only, and access is gated behind clinician verification. No use for a history or engineering student. | Coverage depends on publisher agreements, so an absence of contrasting citations is not evidence of agreement. The free tier is a connector for other AI tools, not the Scite platform: no Assistant, no Search. | Tie |
| Who it is usually for | researchers, working professionals | researchers | Tie |
| Made by | OpenEvidence — Cambridge, US. | Scite — Brooklyn, 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 Scite are level. Treat this as a tiebreaker, not a recommendation.
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
Shows whether later papers supported or contradicted the one you are reading.
Scite is the better answer when the job is what it was built for rather than what the pick above does broadly.
✓ Shows whether later papers supported or contradicted the one you are reading.
✓ It is built for search, research & academics
✓ Nothing else on this site answers that question.
✓ Connect, free and without a card: 25 MCP credits a month to use Scite inside ChatGPT, Claude and other AI tools, grounded in more than 300 million papers. It is a connector rather than a cut-down platform — the Assistant and Search are not included at all
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.
| Row | Favours | Weight | Where it came from |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cheapest way to pay | OpenEvidence | Everything else | From each vendor’s own pricing page. Dates and pages are listed below. |
The prices
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
Scite. Read by hand off scite.ai on 4 September 2026. It is not on the monthly re-check, so confirm there before paying. scite.ai/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.
OpenEvidence
Not a good fitScite
Not a good fitBest choice: Neither
02
Search, Research & Academics
Web research, deep research, books, academic papers, citations, news, fact-checking.
OpenEvidence
Built for thisScite
Built for thisBest choice: Tie
03
Writing, Communication & Language
Emails, reports, essays, editing, summarizing, translation, presentations.
OpenEvidence
Not a good fitScite
Not a good fitBest choice: Neither
04
Coding, Data & Technical Work
Programming, debugging, data analysis, spreadsheets, math, engineering, technical research.
OpenEvidence
Bad fitScite
Bad fitBest choice: Neither
05
Business, Finance & Professional Work
Business strategy, investing, market research, legal, sales, HR, accounting, consulting.
OpenEvidence
Not a good fitScite
Not a good fitBest choice: Neither
06
Image & Design
Image generation, photo editing, logos, graphics, product design, advertising creatives.
OpenEvidence
Bad fitScite
Bad fitBest choice: Neither
07
Video
Video generation and editing, clipping, subtitles, avatars, animation and motion capture.
OpenEvidence
Bad fitScite
Bad fitBest choice: Neither
08
Audio, Voice & Music
Voice generation, transcription, music, dubbing, sound cleanup and podcast production.
OpenEvidence
Bad fitScite
Bad fitBest choice: Neither
09
Marketing & Content Creation
Social media, SEO, advertising, copywriting, content ideas, scripts, brand development.
OpenEvidence
Bad fitScite
Bad fitBest choice: Neither
10
Productivity, Automation & Personal Life
AI agents, workflows, scheduling, meetings, organization, shopping, travel, personal finance.
OpenEvidence
Not a good fitScite
Not a good fitBest choice: Neither
Built for clinical literature.
Cambridge, USBuilt 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
Shows whether later papers supported or contradicted the one you are reading.
Brooklyn, USShows whether later papers supported or contradicted the one you are reading.
It is built for search, research & academics
Nothing else on this site answers that question.
Connect, free and without a card: 25 MCP credits a month to use Scite inside ChatGPT, Claude and other AI tools, grounded in more than 300 million papers. It is a connector rather than a cut-down platform — the Assistant and Search are not included at all
Pricing, simplified
The plans people actually compare, read from each vendor’s own page.
PricingSimple, up-to-date plan overview.
OpenEvidenceby OpenEvidence
Sciteby SciteFree version
OpenEvidence
Yes — Free plan availableFree for verified clinicians, ad-supported
Scite
Yes — Free plan availableConnect, free and without a card: 25 MCP credits a month to use Scite inside ChatGPT, Claude
Individual plans
OpenEvidenceFree plan only
Scite
Basic
$20 / month$12 / month (annual)
Pro
$50 / month$40 / month (annual)
Academic
—
Business plans
OpenEvidenceNot sold to teams
Scite
From $50 / user / monthTeam
Enterprise
OpenEvidenceNot published
Scite
Custom pricing
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 OpenEvidence or Scite 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 Scite are level. Treat this as a tiebreaker, not a recommendation. both have a free plan you can start on. OpenEvidence: Built for clinical literature. Answers cite primary medical research, and it is free for verified clinicians. Scite: Shows whether later papers supported or contradicted the one you are reading. Nothing else on this site answers that question.
Is OpenEvidence or Scite cheaper?
Only one of the two publishes a ladder we have verified, so a like-for-like comparison is not possible yet.
Do OpenEvidence and Scite both have free plans?
Yes. OpenEvidence: Free for verified clinicians, ad-supported. Scite: Connect, free and without a card: 25 MCP credits a month to use Scite inside ChatGPT, Claude and other AI tools, grounded in more than 300 million papers. It is a connector rather than a cut-down platform — the Assistant and Search are not included at all.
What should I watch out for?
OpenEvidence: Medicine only, and access is gated behind clinician verification. No use for a history or engineering student. Scite: Coverage depends on publisher agreements, so an absence of contrasting citations is not evidence of agreement. The free tier is a connector for other AI tools, not the Scite platform: no Assistant, no Search.
Read more
OpenEvidence
What it is for, who makes it, what it costs and what to use instead.
Scite
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.