OpenEvidence has a scribe. Stream is a documentation platform. Those are different things.
People searching for “OpenEvidence scribe” are usually trying to work out what OpenEvidence actually does, and whether its scribe is the answer to their documentation problem. This is an honest attempt at that, including where we are not the answer.
Written 2 September 2026 · we do not speak for OpenEvidence — check their site
What each one is
Clinical decision support
A clinical reference tool. You ask a clinical question and it answers from the medical literature with citations. That is the product, and by all accounts it is very good at it. A scribe has been added as a feature alongside it.
A documentation platform
The record itself. Visits become a problem-based chart, inbound faxes and outside records are read and filed under the problems they concern, and what accumulates is a chart rather than a stack of notes.
They overlap in exactly one place: both can turn a conversation into a note. Everything either product does beyond that has almost no relationship to the other.
So which one solves your problem?
It depends what the problem actually is, and those are two different problems that often get discussed as one.
- “I need to look something up mid-visit.” That is a clinical-knowledge problem, answered at the point of care. OpenEvidence is built for it. Stream does nothing here — see Journal Club below for the one thing we do with the literature, which is a different job entirely.
- “I am typing notes at 9pm.” That is a documentation problem. Any competent scribe helps, including theirs.
- “I spend the first five minutes of every visit rebuilding what happened last time.” That is a chart problem, and it is the one Stream is built for. A scribe of any kind will not fix it, because a note generator has nowhere to put the accumulated context.
Many clinicians should use both
This is not a diplomatic hedge. The tools do genuinely different jobs, and a physician who looks things up during visits and also wants a chart that accumulates is well served by having both open.
If OpenEvidence's scribe already handles your notes and you are content with where they land, you do not need us. That is a real answer, and we would rather say it here than take a trial from someone who will cancel in a month.
Where Stream is genuinely different
- The chart, not the note. Each problem carries its own thread — every assessment and plan you have written for it, in order. One glance shows what has been quietly falling off your attention.
- Inbound documents become part of the record. Faxes, PDFs and pasted records are read, and their clinical content is filed under the problems it belongs to, with every fact linking back to its source page.
- It is organized by medical problem, not by date. Which is how clinicians think about patients, and not how encounters are usually stored.
The one place Stream touches the literature
Stream has a feature called Journal Club, and it is worth describing precisely, because it is adjacent to what OpenEvidence does without being the same thing at all.
Once a week it looks at the conditions you actually documented — the diagnoses, and the ages of the people you were managing them in — and assembles a short reading list from the published literature, with titles, abstracts and a link to the source. It arrives on Monday. You did not search for it.
The difference from clinical decision support is the direction and the moment:
- OpenEvidence answers a question you have, now. You ask, at the point of care, and it responds with cited evidence. That is decision support, and it is what the tool is for.
- Journal Club tells you what has been published about the things you have been seeing. Nobody asks it anything. It arrives after the fact, weekly, and it is for keeping up rather than for deciding.
Being plain about its limits: Journal Club is not connected to any individual patient's chart, it does not offer guidance on a specific case, and it carries no CME credit. It is lifelong learning delivered where you already work, not a second opinion. The current version is deliberately simple — a reading list, with no commenting or discussion.
It is also the reason we would not tell you to drop OpenEvidence. Reading about type 2 diabetes on Monday because you saw a lot of it last week is a genuinely different need from answering a question in front of a patient on Thursday. More on how Journal Club works, or why we built it.
What Stream does not do, plainly. There is no clinical decision support in Stream. Journal Club notwithstanding, there is no way to ask it a clinical question — no search, no differential suggestions, no guidance on a particular patient, nothing at the point of care. If that is what you are looking for, this is not the product and no amount of comparison will change that.
We also do not write back into your EHR — the note copies over in one click — and we are not SOC 2 certified. If either is a requirement, that is a reason to look elsewhere.
OpenEvidence is an independent product and we have no affiliation with them. This page describes our understanding of their offering as of 2 September 2026; products change, and theirs is developing quickly, so check their site rather than take our word for what it does today.
If the chart is the part that is costing you time
Thirty days, no card. Or twenty minutes with a physician who uses it daily.
Start free trial Book a demo