ClinicalEvidence is a Consensus AI alternative for teams whose questions depend on registered clinical trials, not only on published papers. It answers from ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO ICTRP and PubMed, cites every sentence to an NCT number or PMID, and adds trial tables, status alerts and pooled team seats. Consensus is the better pick for fast, broad questions across the published literature at a low individual price.
Consensus is a search engine for published research. Library guides describe it as built on Semantic Scholar's roughly 200 million papers, with OpenAlex and its own crawl filling gaps, and a Medical Mode that narrows results to more than 1 000 medical journals. That is a strong base for "what does the literature say" questions.
Trial questions are different. A phase 3 study can be registered, recruiting and changing its primary endpoint for years before a paper appears. Results are sometimes posted to a registry and never published at all. If your deliverable is a competitive landscape, a feasibility estimate or a medical information response about an ongoing program, paper search leaves out the records that matter most.
ClinicalEvidence is not affiliated with Consensus. Pick the tool that matches the sources your deliverable has to cite.
Consensus prices come from its help center article on subscription plans, checked in October 2026. Source coverage comes from Consensus and university library guides. For anything not listed there, confirm with Consensus.
| Consensus | ClinicalEvidence | |
|---|---|---|
| Who it is for | Students, researchers and clinicians asking questions of the published literature | Clinical development, medical affairs, CRO feasibility, HEOR and academic trial teams |
| Price | Pro 20 USD per month or 144 USD per year; Deep 65 USD per month or 540 USD per year; Teams and Enterprise custom | Clinician 49 USD monthly or 24 USD per month billed yearly; Research Team 199 USD monthly or 99 USD per month billed yearly |
| Sources | Published papers via Semantic Scholar and OpenAlex, about 200 million documents; Medical Mode for over 1 000 medical journals | ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO ICTRP, PubMed and PubMed Central open access full text where licenses allow |
| Trial registries | Not listed as a source; for ClinicalTrials.gov coverage, confirm with Consensus | ClinicalTrials.gov, EU CTR and WHO ICTRP, index refreshed daily |
| Citations | Answers link to the papers they draw on | Every sentence cited to an NCT number or PMID, each citation checked before the answer is shown |
| Deep research reports | Deep reviews, 15 per month on Pro and 200 on Deep | Cited answers with trial tables of up to 50 to 1 000 studies depending on plan |
| Trial table | Not offered as a registry table | Phase, population, interventions, endpoints, results posted, sponsor, status, enrollment, dates and locations |
| Alerts | For new trial and status change alerts, confirm with Consensus | Alerts on new trials and status changes |
| Team seats | Teams plan with individual logins and central billing, priced per seat on request | Research Team includes 3 seats, Organization 10, Enterprise up to 50, answers pooled |
| API and exports | API and MCP calls, 500 per month on Pro, 2 000 on Deep | Exports to CSV, RIS and BibTeX on every plan; XLSX and DOCX from Research Team |
| Best for | Quick literature answers and broad scoping of published research | Registry landscapes, cited trial answers and shared evidence work |
Consensus wins on price for a single researcher, on the size of its paper index and on speed for broad literature questions. Its Pro plan at 144 USD per year is hard to beat if published papers are all you need. ClinicalEvidence costs more because it does a different job: it reads trial registries, builds a table you can filter and export, and watches the landscape for changes.
Start with the population, the intervention and the outcome you care about. Then decide whether you need the registered landscape, posted results or the published papers that interpret them.
Run a clinical trial search across ClinicalTrials.gov, EU CTR, WHO ICTRP and PubMed in one question. The index refreshes daily.
Check whether European programs matter for your scope and read how the EU Clinical Trials Register fits in before you compare summaries.
Read the answer. Every sentence carries an NCT number or PMID, and each citation is verified against its source before you see it. No verified source, no answer.
Open the trial table, filter by phase, status, sponsor type and country, and go back to the records before a conclusion goes into your report.
Export the table and references to CSV, XLSX, RIS or BibTeX for the deck, the protocol synopsis or the reference manager.
Comparing other tools too? See our Elicit alternative and OpenEvidence alternative pages, which use the same criteria.
Each sentence links to an NCT number or PMID. Open it and judge for yourself whether the passage supports the claim. Verification proves the reference exists and supports the sentence; your team still appraises study quality and relevance.
The trial table lists phase, population, interventions, endpoints, results posted, sponsor, status, enrollment, dates and locations. Look at the results field before you treat a planned endpoint as an observed finding, and check locations and enrollment together when you assess recruitment.
Compare two to four interventions to see comparators, endpoints and outcomes across studies. Results from separate trials need appraisal before they support a treatment comparison or a development decision.
Alerts flag new trials and status changes on a saved question. Research Team adds shared workspaces, comments and roles, so a colleague can review the same evidence before it leaves the team.
If your project is a full screening review of papers, look at systematic review software requirements first. For broad scoping of the literature, an AI literature review workflow may be enough, and Consensus does that well.
ClinicalEvidence carries no advertising. Plans are billed monthly or yearly and answers are pooled across the seats on the plan.
For one person who reads papers, Consensus Pro is cheaper. For three people who need registry tables and alerts, Research Team at 99 USD per month billed yearly covers all three seats from one pool. Full limits are on the pricing page.
For clinical trial work, ClinicalEvidence is a strong alternative because it searches ClinicalTrials.gov, EU CTR and WHO ICTRP alongside PubMed and cites every sentence to an NCT number or PMID. For paper extraction and systematic review screening, Elicit is the usual pick. Consensus stays the cheaper choice for quick literature questions.
Consensus Pro costs 20 USD per month or 144 USD per year, about 12 USD per month. Deep costs 65 USD per month or 540 USD per year and raises Deep reviews to 200 per month. Teams and Enterprise plans are priced on request. Check the Consensus pricing page before you buy, since plans change.
Consensus searches published research papers through Semantic Scholar and OpenAlex, so it finds trials once they are published. Its documentation does not list ClinicalTrials.gov or other registries as a source. Recruiting trials, registered endpoints and posted results that never reached a journal need a registry search.
Yes, for literature questions. Its Medical Mode narrows results to more than 1 000 medical journals, and answers link to the papers they cite. It is less suited to registry landscapes, feasibility work or monitoring trial status, where you need records from ClinicalTrials.gov, EU CTR and WHO ICTRP.
They do different jobs. Consensus is faster and cheaper for answering a question from the literature. Elicit is stronger for structured extraction and screening many papers. Neither is built around multi-registry trial landscapes, which is where ClinicalEvidence fits. Many research teams use one literature tool and one trial tool.
Yes. Use Consensus to scope the published literature and ClinicalEvidence for registered trials, trial tables and status alerts. Export ClinicalEvidence references as RIS or BibTeX into the same reference manager, then check each source before a conclusion goes into a report or a medical response.
Bring a real question from your current project, open the citations and the trial table, and see if the registry view changes your answer.
Use your work email. We send a 6 digit code to confirm it.
Already have an account?
By creating an account you agree to the Terms and the Privacy policy.
New to ClinicalEvidence?