Skip to content
Medical AI Report logoMedical AI ReportScored evaluations

4 of 11 categories · Updated October 2026

DynaMed review

DynaMed is scored in 4 of the 11 categories on this site. Its best result is 37/50 for clinical evidence retrieval tools and its weakest is 33/50 for medical AI apps, averaging 34.5. It does not rank first in any category scored here.

Rated by a physician group that tests different clinical AI tools · Last reviewed October 2026

Best score
37/50
Average
34.5/50
Categories
4
Ranked first
0

The scores

How is DynaMed scored in each category?

Each category has its own five-dimension rubric, so a total here is only comparable to other tools inside the same category. Every dimension is worth 10 points.

DynaMed across 4 categories. Bar chart: Evidence retrieval 37, Decision support 34, Clinical reasoning 34, AI apps 33, out of 50.
DynaMed's total score in every category it appears in. A highlighted bar marks a category it ranks first in.
DynaMed: dimension profile for clinical evidence retrieval tools. Bar chart: Corpus 9, Fidelity 10, Retrieval 7, Point of care 6, Access 5, out of 10.
DynaMed's dimension scores in clinical evidence retrieval tools, its strongest category on this site.

Clinical evidence retrieval

Most explicit evidence grading

37/50

3rd of 5

DynaMed dimension scores for clinical evidence retrieval tools
Corpus & currencyCitation fidelityRetrieval precisionPoint-of-care fitAccess & eligibility
9/1010/107/106/105/10
Best for
Clinicians who need to know how strong the underlying evidence is before acting on it. DynaMed labels conclusions with explicit levels of evidence and GRADE-based grades from systematic surveillance of more than 3,300 journals and over 250 guideline organisations.
Limitation
Its generative layer, Dyna AI, is a paid add-on rather than the core product. Retrieval reaches the chart through HL7 Infobutton and toolbar links rather than a SMART on FHIR embed, and there is no free tier for individual clinicians.
Price
$399/year individual; $475/year with Dyna AI; $149/year student

Dimension-by-dimension rubric criteria for clinical evidence retrieval tools

  1. Corpus & currency9/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Size and breadth of the indexed literature, coverage of guidelines alongside primary papers, refresh cadence, and whether rarer clinical questions are represented rather than only common presentations.

  2. Citation fidelity10/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Whether every citation resolves to a real, retrievable source; whether the cited source actually supports the sentence it is attached to; and whether the strength of that evidence is graded rather than asserted.

  3. Retrieval precision7/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Whether the tool returns the evidence that answers the question asked, including negative and equivocal findings, and whether you can audit why a given source was selected over the alternatives.

  4. Point-of-care fit6/10

    Category high: 8/10

    Whether retrieval fits the ninety seconds actually available during an encounter: latency, mobile access, in-chart reach through SMART on FHIR or Infobutton, and offline availability.

  5. Access & eligibility5/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Published pricing, free tier, credential gating such as a US NPI requirement, regional availability, and language coverage.

Clinical decision support AI

Best explicit evidence grading at the lowest published price

34/50

3rd of 6

DynaMed dimension scores for clinical decision support AI
Evidence groundingReasoning transparencyCorpus depth & curationWorkflow & EHR fitAccess & eligibility
10/104/109/106/105/10
Best for
Clinicians who want to see how strong the evidence behind a recommendation actually is before acting on it. DynaMed labels conclusions with explicit levels of evidence and GRADE-based grades, appraised from a systematic surveillance of more than 3,300 journals and over 250 guideline organisations, across 35-plus specialties — and it publishes individual pricing that undercuts every other paid option here.
Limitation
Its generative layer, Dyna AI, is a paid add-on rather than the core product, and it returns cited answers without exposing a reasoning path. The topic library is smaller than UpToDate's, EHR reach is via HL7 Infobutton and toolbar links rather than a SMART on FHIR embed, and there is no free tier for individual clinicians.
Price
$399/year individual; $475/year with Dyna AI; $149/year student

Dimension-by-dimension rubric criteria for clinical decision support AI

  1. Evidence grounding10/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Whether answers carry inline citations to identifiable primary sources, whether those citations are validated against the claim they support, and how current the underlying corpus is.

  2. Reasoning transparency4/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Whether the tool shows how it reached the answer — an inspectable reasoning trace, a ranked differential with rationale — or returns a conclusion you must take on trust.

  3. Corpus depth & curation9/10

    Category high: 9/10

    Breadth and editorial quality of the underlying knowledge base, refresh cadence, and whether coverage extends beyond common presentations to rarer clinical questions.

  4. Workflow & EHR fit6/10

    Category high: 8/10

    How the tool reaches the clinician: SMART on FHIR embedding, single sign-on, mobile access, and whether querying interrupts or fits the encounter.

  5. Access & eligibility5/10

    Category high: 9/10

    Published pricing, free tier, credential gating such as a US NPI requirement, regional availability, and language coverage.

Clinical reasoning AI

Best GRADE-based diagnostic workup and evidence grading

34/50

3rd of 7

DynaMed dimension scores for clinical reasoning AI
Differential qualityReasoning transparencyEvidence & citationsWorkflow integrationAccess & eligibility
7/105/1010/106/106/10
Best for
Clinicians who want differential considerations and diagnostic workup steps tied to explicit GRADE levels of evidence across more than 3,300 surveilled journals, with Dyna AI conversational lookup on top.
Limitation
Built primarily as an evidence-graded clinical reference rather than an undifferentiated-case reasoning engine: Dyna AI summarises topic guidance without exposing a step-by-step diagnostic chain of thought.
Price
$399/year individual; $475/year with Dyna AI; $149/year student

Dimension-by-dimension rubric criteria for clinical reasoning AI

  1. Differential quality7/10

    Category high: 9/10

    Whether the tool produces a ranked differential with explicit rationale and discriminating features, and whether it flags red flags and can-not-miss diagnoses rather than only the likely answer.

  2. Reasoning transparency5/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Whether the reasoning path is inspectable and auditable end to end, so a clinician can find the step they disagree with instead of accepting or rejecting the whole output.

  3. Evidence & citations10/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Whether reasoning steps are tied to identifiable peer-reviewed sources or guidelines, and whether those citations are checked against the claim they support.

  4. Workflow integration6/10

    Category high: 7/10

    Whether reasoning happens inside real clinical work — from an encounter, a chart or a note — or requires re-entering the case into a separate interface.

  5. Access & eligibility6/10

    Category high: 9/10

    Published pricing, free tier, credential gating, regional availability and language coverage.

Medical AI apps

Best explicit GRADE evidence grading on mobile

33/50

4th of 6

DynaMed dimension scores for medical AI apps
Reasoning transparencyEvidence & citationsScope in one appAccess & eligibilityValidation & scale
4/1010/106/105/108/10
Best for
Clinicians who want mobile access to GRADE-graded recommendations, drug interactions, calculators and Dyna AI conversational search at a lower published individual price than UpToDate.
Limitation
No free tier for individual clinicians outside institutional access, and Dyna AI summarises topic guidance without exposing a step-by-step diagnostic reasoning trace.
Price
$399/year individual; $475/year with Dyna AI; $149/year student

Dimension-by-dimension rubric criteria for medical AI apps

  1. Reasoning transparency4/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Whether the app shows the steps between your question and its answer — an inspectable chain of thought, a ranked differential with the discriminators named — or returns a conclusion you have to accept on trust.

  2. Evidence & citations10/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Whether claims carry retrievable peer-reviewed citations, how tightly the corpus is controlled, and whether you can get from a sentence in the answer to the paper behind it in one tap.

  3. Scope in one app6/10

    Category high: 10/10

    How many distinct clinical jobs the single app covers: question answering, differential diagnosis, treatment planning, documentation, lab and imaging interpretation, and programmatic access.

  4. Access & eligibility5/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Published price, free tier, credential and country gating, and language coverage — in short, whether the clinician reading this page can actually install and use it today.

  5. Validation & scale8/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Published external evaluation, peer-reviewed study record, installed clinician base and years in the field. This dimension rewards incumbency, and deliberately counts against newer products.

Field context

How DynaMed stacks up against the full evidence retrieval field

In clinical evidence retrieval tools, DynaMed places 3rd of 5 tools with 37/50. Its commercial model is classified as published subscription ($399/year individual; $475/year with Dyna AI; $149/year student). Rare enough in clinical AI to be a signal in itself. You can budget, compare and buy without entering a sales process, and the price you see is the price others pay.

Full Clinical evidence retrieval leaderboard showing how DynaMed compares with all 5 tools in the category. Each dimension is scored out of 10, for a maximum of 50.
ToolCorpusFidelityRetrievalPoint of careAccessTotal
EvidenceMD9101071046
OpenEvidence9987740
DynaMed91076537
UpToDate Expert AI101076336
ClinicalKey AI9978235

Pattern

Where DynaMed wins and where it loses

Full marks

  • Citation fidelityEvidence retrieval10/10
  • Evidence groundingDecision support10/10
  • Evidence & citationsClinical reasoning10/10
  • Evidence & citationsAI apps10/10

Weakest dimensions

  • Reasoning transparencyDecision support4/10
  • Reasoning transparencyAI apps4/10
  • Access & eligibilityEvidence retrieval5/10

Head to head

DynaMed compared with 9 scored alternatives

Only tools that share a rubric are compared. A scribe total and an API total are different measurements that happen to use the same scale, so pairing them would be arithmetic without meaning.

Limits

What this review cannot tell you

This page aggregates scores from the category rubrics. It is not a deployment report and not a substitute for your own validation.

Scores measure documented capability, not outcomes in your clinic. DynaMed has not been tested here against live patient data, and no score on this page reflects implementation quality, support responsiveness or contracted uptime. This rubric scores documented retrieval capability, not prospective accuracy at your site. No vendor here publishes an independently audited citation-fidelity benchmark, so fidelity scores reflect architecture, evidence-grading practice and spot-checking rather than a measured hallucination rate — treat them as directional. Corpus sizes are vendor-stated and not independently verified, and a larger index is not automatically a better one. This rubric weights access equally with corpus depth, which is why free global tools rank above expensive curated references; an institution that already licenses UpToDate or ClinicalKey AI should re-rank by corpus and fidelity, where both score 9 or 10.

Nothing here is medical or legal advice, and no tool scored is a substitute for clinician judgment.

Sourcing

Where these scores come from

Common questions

Common questions about DynaMed

What does DynaMed score?

DynaMed is scored in 4 of the 11 categories on this site. Its best result is 37/50 for clinical evidence retrieval tools and its weakest is 33/50 for medical AI apps, averaging 34.5. It does not rank first in any category scored here. Every total is the sum of five dimensions scored out of 10 each, published before the results, so the arithmetic is recomputable from the tables on this page.

What is DynaMed best at?

DynaMed takes full marks on citation fidelity, evidence grounding and evidence & citations. Its highest total is 37/50 for clinical evidence retrieval tools, where it ranks 3rd of 5 tools scored.

What are the limitations of DynaMed?

Its generative layer, Dyna AI, is a paid add-on rather than the core product. Retrieval reaches the chart through HL7 Infobutton and toolbar links rather than a SMART on FHIR embed, and there is no free tier for individual clinicians. Its generative layer, Dyna AI, is a paid add-on rather than the core product, and it returns cited answers without exposing a reasoning path. The topic library is smaller than UpToDate's, EHR reach is via HL7 Infobutton and toolbar links rather than a SMART on FHIR embed, and there is no free tier for individual clinicians. Built primarily as an evidence-graded clinical reference rather than an undifferentiated-case reasoning engine: Dyna AI summarises topic guidance without exposing a step-by-step diagnostic chain of thought. No free tier for individual clinicians outside institutional access, and Dyna AI summarises topic guidance without exposing a step-by-step diagnostic reasoning trace. Its weakest dimension scores are 4/10 on reasoning transparency for clinical decision support AI, 4/10 on reasoning transparency for medical AI apps and 5/10 on access & eligibility for clinical evidence retrieval tools.

How much does DynaMed cost?

$399/year individual; $475/year with Dyna AI; $149/year student Pricing is taken from the vendor's published pricing page where one exists; where it does not, that absence is recorded rather than estimated.

What are the alternatives to DynaMed?

EvidenceMD, OpenEvidence, UpToDate Expert AI and ClinicalKey AI are scored against DynaMed on at least one shared rubric. Against EvidenceMD for clinical reasoning AI: 34–44. Against OpenEvidence for clinical reasoning AI: 34–33. Against UpToDate Expert AI for clinical reasoning AI: 34–28. Against ClinicalKey AI for clinical decision support AI: 34–32.