---
type: source
title: "OpenEvidence: 20M Clinical Consultations/Month, $12B Valuation, 40% of US Physicians Daily"
author: "PR Newswire / OpenEvidence"
url: https://www.openevidence.com/announcements/openevidence-the-fastest-growing-application-for-physicians-in-history-announces-dollar210-million-round-at-dollar35-billion-valuation
date: 2026-01-01
domain: health
secondary_domains: [ai-alignment]
format: company-announcement
status: unprocessed
priority: medium
tags: [openevidence, clinical-ai, decision-support, physician-adoption, clinical-decision-support, health-ai, trust]
processed_by: vida
processed_date: 2026-03-18
enrichments_applied: ["OpenEvidence became the fastest-adopted clinical technology in history reaching 40 percent of US physicians daily within two years.md", "medical LLM benchmark performance does not translate to clinical impact because physicians with and without AI access achieve similar diagnostic accuracy in randomized trials.md", "healthcare AI funding follows a winner-take-most pattern with category leaders absorbing capital at unprecedented velocity while 35 percent of deals are flat or down rounds.md"]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

OpenEvidence growth metrics as of early 2026 (significant update from the existing KB claim "40 percent of US physicians daily within two years"):

**Current Scale:**
- 40%+ of US physicians daily (same percentage as existing KB claim, but at much larger absolute scale)
- 8.5M+ clinical consultations/month in 2025
- 20M clinical consultations/month by January 2026 — 2,000%+ YoY growth
- Milestone March 10, 2026: 1 million clinical consultations in ONE DAY — first time in history an AI system reached this scale with verified physicians
- Used across 10,000+ hospitals and medical centers nationwide

**Funding trajectory:**
- Series D: $250M led by Thrive Capital and DST Global (January 2026)
- Valuation doubled in 3 months: $6B → $12B
- Context: valued at $3.5B when KB claim was written; now $12B

**Perfect USMLE score achievement:**
- OpenEvidence became the first AI in history to score 100% on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) — all parts
- Benchmark performance: now exceeds any human score on the most challenging medical licensing exam

**Adoption barriers that persist despite scale:**
- 44% of physicians concerned about accuracy and risk of misinformation
- 19% concerned about lack of physician oversight or explainability
- These concerns persist even among heavy users — not a novelty effect
- "Road to wider adoption depends less on adding new features and more on addressing fundamental issues of trust, responsibility, and accountability"

**Key framing from healthcare.digital 2026 analysis:**
- Positioned as "ChatGPT for Doctors" — general clinical reasoning, not narrow task AI
- 2026 plans: expanding clinical decision support, workflow integration
- Different model from Abridge (documentation) — OpenEvidence is clinical reasoning at point of care

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** The existing KB claim "OpenEvidence became the fastest-adopted clinical technology in history reaching 40 percent of US physicians daily within two years" is still accurate but significantly understates the current scale. The valuation tripling ($3.5B → $12B in months) and the 2,000%+ consultation growth rate suggest OpenEvidence is the dominant beachhead for clinical AI in the outpatient/primary care workflow — separate from the ambient scribe market where Abridge dominates.

This creates a two-track clinical AI story: (1) Abridge/ambient scribes for documentation (threatened by Epic AI Charting), and (2) OpenEvidence for clinical reasoning/decision support (not yet threatened by Epic since it's a separate workflow).

**What surprised me:** The USMLE 100% score and the 1M consultations/day milestone suggest OpenEvidence is in a different category from early clinical AI tools. At 20M consultations/month with verified physicians, this is larger than any previously deployed clinical decision support system.

**What I expected but didn't find:** No peer-reviewed outcomes data on whether OpenEvidence-assisted consultations produce better patient outcomes. The benchmark performance (USMLE 100%) doesn't necessarily translate to clinical impact — existing KB claim [[medical LLM benchmark performance does not translate to clinical impact]] is a direct challenge to this data.

**KB connections:**
- Updates: [[OpenEvidence became the fastest-adopted clinical technology in history reaching 40 percent of US physicians daily within two years]] — the claim is still accurate but understates 2026 scale
- Tension with: [[medical LLM benchmark performance does not translate to clinical impact because physicians with and without AI access achieve similar diagnostic accuracy in randomized trials]] — OpenEvidence is now at scale; are outcomes improving?
- New connection: OpenEvidence (reasoning) + Abridge (documentation) + Epic AI Charting = three distinct clinical AI beachheads serving different workflows

**Extraction hints:**
- The existing KB claim needs updating: add the 20M/month consultations, $12B valuation, USMLE 100% score
- CLAIM CANDIDATE: "OpenEvidence's growth to 20M monthly physician consultations creates the first empirical test of whether clinical AI benchmark performance translates to population health outcomes — the absence of outcomes data at this scale is a significant gap"
- The physician trust concerns (44% accuracy worried) despite heavy use is an extractable finding: even the most-adopted clinical AI has persistent trust barriers that don't resolve with familiarity

**Context:** OpenEvidence competes in a different space from Abridge — it's clinical reasoning support, not documentation automation. Epic AI Charting doesn't threaten OpenEvidence (different workflow, different value proposition). This insulates OpenEvidence from the Epic commoditization threat.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[OpenEvidence became the fastest-adopted clinical technology in history reaching 40 percent of US physicians daily within two years]]
WHY ARCHIVED: Significant scale update — the existing claim understates 2026 metrics by an order of magnitude. Also: USMLE 100% creates the benchmark vs. outcomes tension in practice, not theory.
EXTRACTION HINT: Update the existing claim with scale metrics, but flag the benchmark-to-outcomes translation tension as a challenge to both the OpenEvidence claim and the benchmark performance claim


## Key Facts
- OpenEvidence reached 8.5M clinical consultations/month in 2025
- OpenEvidence reached 20M clinical consultations/month by January 2026
- OpenEvidence valuation: $3.5B → $6B → $12B in under 12 months
- OpenEvidence Series D: $250M led by Thrive Capital and DST Global (January 2026)
- OpenEvidence first AI to score 100% on USMLE (all parts)
- OpenEvidence used across 10,000+ hospitals and medical centers
- March 10, 2026: OpenEvidence reached 1M consultations in one day
- 44% of physicians concerned about OpenEvidence accuracy/misinformation risk
- 19% of physicians concerned about lack of physician oversight/explainability
