Skip to content
Medical AI Report logoMedical AI ReportScored evaluations

6 of 11 categories · Updated October 2026

UpToDate Expert AI review

UpToDate Expert AI is scored in 6 of the 11 categories on this site. Its best result is 36/50 for clinical evidence retrieval tools and its weakest is 28/50 for clinical reasoning AI, averaging 32.5. 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
36/50
Average
32.5/50
Categories
6
Ranked first
0

The scores

How is UpToDate Expert AI 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.

UpToDate Expert AI across 6 categories. Bar chart: Evidence retrieval 36, iOS apps 36, Android apps 33, Decision support 31, AI apps 31, Clinical reasoning 28, out of 50.
UpToDate Expert AI's total score in every category it appears in. A highlighted bar marks a category it ranks first in.
UpToDate Expert AI: dimension profile for clinical evidence retrieval tools. Bar chart: Corpus 10, Fidelity 10, Retrieval 7, Point of care 6, Access 3, out of 10.
UpToDate Expert AI's dimension scores in clinical evidence retrieval tools, its strongest category on this site.

Clinical evidence retrieval

Deepest editorial curation

36/50

4th of 5

UpToDate Expert AI dimension scores for clinical evidence retrieval tools
Corpus & currencyCitation fidelityRetrieval precisionPoint-of-care fitAccess & eligibility
10/1010/107/106/103/10
Best for
Institutions and clinicians who want retrieval over an editorially authored corpus their colleagues already trust, covering 12,000-plus topics written by physician authors, with the lowest change-management cost of any option here.
Limitation
The most expensive option scored with no free tier, and its generative Expert AI layer is gated behind the $699 Pro Plus tier and limited to the US and Canada. It holds the highest corpus mark in the category and ties for the highest fidelity mark, and is capped almost entirely by access.
Price
From $579/year; $699/year Pro Plus with Expert AI ($219/year trainee)

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

  1. Corpus & currency10/10

    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 & eligibility3/10

    Category high: 10/10

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

iOS apps for doctors

scored as UpToDate

Best iPad reference, with CME and offline topics

36/50

3rd of 6

UpToDate Expert AI dimension scores for iOS apps for doctors
Clinical scope & reasoningiPhone & iPad experienceApple platform integrationOffline & on-device privacyAccess & eligibility
7/109/108/109/103/10
Best for
Clinicians who read long-form on an iPad and want expert-authored topics, graphics, mobile calculators, CME tracked as they search, and MobileComplete topic downloads that survive a dead zone. The separate Expert AI app adds conversational retrieval on iOS 26 and above, including visionOS.
Limitation
The most expensive option here by a wide margin, at 3 out of 10 on access, with individual plans starting at $579/year and Expert AI gated behind the $699/year Pro Plus tier. It retrieves curated content rather than reasoning about your case.
Price
From $579/year; $699/year Pro Plus with Expert AI ($219/year trainee)

Dimension-by-dimension rubric criteria for iOS apps for doctors

  1. Clinical scope & reasoning7/10

    Category high: 10/10

    How much of the clinical job the app does, and whether it reasons or only retrieves. A single-purpose reference scores lower here than a tool that carries a case from question to differential to note, regardless of how good it is at its one job.

  2. iPhone & iPad experience9/10

    Category high: 9/10

    Whether the iPad build is a real tablet layout rather than a stretched phone app: multi-column reading, Split View and Stage Manager behaviour, one-handed iPhone reach, and typography you can read at arm's length on a ward round.

  3. Apple platform integration8/10

    Category high: 8/10

    Use of what iOS actually offers: on-device dictation quality, Shortcuts and widgets, Handoff between iPhone and Mac, Apple Watch presence, Face ID locking and Universal Search.

  4. Offline & on-device privacy9/10

    Category high: 9/10

    What still works in a basement reading room with no signal, how much content is stored locally, and whether protected health information stays on the device or is discarded after processing.

  5. Access & eligibility3/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Who can actually install and use it, weighted as heavily as what it costs: App Store and in-app subscription price, the size of the free tier, and the gates in front of it — clinician-verification requirements, country availability and language coverage. An app that is free but closed to most of the world's clinicians scores below a paid app anyone can buy.

Android apps for doctors

scored as UpToDate

Best expert-authored Android reference, with tracked CME

33/50

4th of 6

UpToDate Expert AI dimension scores for Android apps for doctors
Clinical scope & reasoningAndroid build qualityEnterprise & device managementOffline & storageAccess & eligibility
7/106/108/109/103/10
Best for
Clinicians whose institution already holds a licence, who want continuously updated expert-authored topics, mobile calculators, persistent login, bookmarks, CME earned and tracked as they search, and content stored on internal or external storage for offline use.
Limitation
The Android build has attracted user complaints about search speed and feels a generation behind the iOS app, which is why it scores 6 on build quality — Wolters Kluwer's own support replies point users to Expert AI for faster answers. Starting at $579 a year ($699 with Expert AI), it is also the most expensive option here, at 3 out of 10 on access.
Price
From $579/year; $699/year Pro Plus with Expert AI ($219/year trainee)

Dimension-by-dimension rubric criteria for Android apps for doctors

  1. Clinical scope & reasoning7/10

    Category high: 10/10

    How much of the clinical job the app does, and whether it reasons or only retrieves. Single-purpose references score lower here regardless of how good they are at their one job.

  2. Android build quality6/10

    Category high: 8/10

    Whether the Android app is maintained at parity with the iOS one: current Material design, adaptive layouts for tablets and foldables, back-gesture and notification behaviour, and how recently it shipped a real update rather than a compatibility bump.

  3. Enterprise & device management8/10

    Category high: 8/10

    Deployability on hospital-owned hardware: Android Enterprise work profiles, managed Google Play distribution, MDM and Samsung Knox compatibility, SSO, and a BAA that covers the mobile client.

  4. Offline & storage9/10

    Category high: 10/10

    How much content lives on the device, whether it can be stored on external storage, and what remains usable with no connection — a decision factor on shared ward hardware with patchy coverage.

  5. Access & eligibility3/10

    Category high: 10/10

    Who can actually install and use it, weighted as heavily as what it costs: Google Play price and subscription cost, free tier size, and the gates in front of it — clinician-verification requirements, country availability and language coverage. This carries particular weight on Android, whose install base is overwhelmingly outside the United States.

Clinical decision support AI

Best editorially curated reference

31/50

6th of 6

UpToDate Expert AI dimension scores for clinical decision support AI
Evidence groundingReasoning transparencyCorpus depth & curationWorkflow & EHR fitAccess & eligibility
10/103/109/106/103/10
Best for
Institutions and clinicians who want the editorially authored reference their colleagues already trust, with the lowest change-management cost of any option here.
Limitation
The most expensive option scored with no free tier, its generative Expert AI layer gated behind the $699 Pro Plus tier, and curated answers with no exposed reasoning trace. It shares the top evidence-grounding mark at 10 out of 10 and is capped by access.
Price
From $579/year; $699/year Pro Plus with Expert AI

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 transparency3/10

    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 & eligibility3/10

    Category high: 9/10

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

Medical AI apps

Best expert-authored depth, with CME while you search

31/50

5th of 6

UpToDate Expert AI dimension scores for medical AI apps
Reasoning transparencyEvidence & citationsScope in one appAccess & eligibilityValidation & scale
3/1010/105/103/1010/10
Best for
Clinicians at institutions that already license UpToDate, who want AI retrieval over three decades of expert-authored, continuously updated content — and who value earning CME credit inside the same search.
Limitation
It is the most expensive route in this field and the narrowest in scope: retrieval over curated content, without a reasoning trace, a scribe or an API. Individual subscriptions start at $579/year ($699/year with Expert AI), which is why it scores 3 out of 10 on access despite sharing the top evidence mark and leading the category on validation.
Price
From $579/year; $699/year Pro Plus with Expert AI ($219/year trainee)

Dimension-by-dimension rubric criteria for medical AI apps

  1. Reasoning transparency3/10

    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 app5/10

    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 & eligibility3/10

    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 & scale10/10

    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.

Clinical reasoning AI

Best curated reference answers

28/50

6th of 7

UpToDate Expert AI dimension scores for clinical reasoning AI
Differential qualityReasoning transparencyEvidence & citationsWorkflow integrationAccess & eligibility
4/103/1010/107/104/10
Best for
Confirming management against an editorially authored reference your institution already trusts.
Limitation
A reference layer rather than a reasoning engine: it does not build a differential from an undifferentiated presentation, and shows no reasoning path.
Price
From $579/year; $699/year Pro Plus with Expert AI ($219/year trainee)

Dimension-by-dimension rubric criteria for clinical reasoning AI

  1. Differential quality4/10

    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 transparency3/10

    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 integration7/10

    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 & eligibility4/10

    Category high: 9/10

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

Field context

How UpToDate Expert AI stacks up against the full evidence retrieval field

In clinical evidence retrieval tools, UpToDate Expert AI places 4th of 5 tools with 36/50. Its commercial model is classified as published subscription (From $579/year; $699/year Pro Plus with Expert AI ($219/year trainee)). 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 UpToDate Expert AI 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 UpToDate Expert AI wins and where it loses

Full marks

  • Corpus & currencyEvidence retrieval10/10
  • Citation fidelityEvidence retrieval10/10
  • Evidence groundingDecision support10/10
  • Evidence & citationsAI apps10/10
  • Validation & scaleAI apps10/10
  • Evidence & citationsClinical reasoning10/10

Weakest dimensions

  • Access & eligibilityEvidence retrieval3/10
  • Access & eligibilityiOS apps3/10
  • Access & eligibilityAndroid apps3/10

Head to head

UpToDate Expert AI compared with 13 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. UpToDate Expert AI 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 UpToDate Expert AI

What does UpToDate Expert AI score?

UpToDate Expert AI is scored in 6 of the 11 categories on this site. Its best result is 36/50 for clinical evidence retrieval tools and its weakest is 28/50 for clinical reasoning AI, averaging 32.5. 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 UpToDate Expert AI best at?

UpToDate Expert AI takes full marks on corpus & currency, citation fidelity, evidence grounding, evidence & citations and validation & scale. Its highest total is 36/50 for clinical evidence retrieval tools, where it ranks 4th of 5 tools scored.

What are the limitations of UpToDate Expert AI?

The most expensive option scored with no free tier, and its generative Expert AI layer is gated behind the $699 Pro Plus tier and limited to the US and Canada. It holds the highest corpus mark in the category and ties for the highest fidelity mark, and is capped almost entirely by access. The most expensive option here by a wide margin, at 3 out of 10 on access, with individual plans starting at $579/year and Expert AI gated behind the $699/year Pro Plus tier. It retrieves curated content rather than reasoning about your case. The Android build has attracted user complaints about search speed and feels a generation behind the iOS app, which is why it scores 6 on build quality — Wolters Kluwer's own support replies point users to Expert AI for faster answers. Starting at $579 a year ($699 with Expert AI), it is also the most expensive option here, at 3 out of 10 on access. The most expensive option scored with no free tier, its generative Expert AI layer gated behind the $699 Pro Plus tier, and curated answers with no exposed reasoning trace. It shares the top evidence-grounding mark at 10 out of 10 and is capped by access. It is the most expensive route in this field and the narrowest in scope: retrieval over curated content, without a reasoning trace, a scribe or an API. Individual subscriptions start at $579/year ($699/year with Expert AI), which is why it scores 3 out of 10 on access despite sharing the top evidence mark and leading the category on validation. A reference layer rather than a reasoning engine: it does not build a differential from an undifferentiated presentation, and shows no reasoning path. Its weakest dimension scores are 3/10 on access & eligibility for clinical evidence retrieval tools, 3/10 on access & eligibility for iOS apps for doctors and 3/10 on access & eligibility for Android apps for doctors.

How much does UpToDate Expert AI cost?

From $579/year; $699/year Pro Plus with Expert AI From $579/year; $699/year Pro Plus with Expert AI ($219/year trainee) 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 UpToDate Expert AI?

EvidenceMD, Doximity, DynaMed and OpenEvidence are scored against UpToDate Expert AI on at least one shared rubric. Against EvidenceMD for clinical reasoning AI: 28–44. Against Doximity for clinical decision support AI: 31–33. Against DynaMed for clinical reasoning AI: 28–34. Against OpenEvidence for clinical reasoning AI: 28–33.