ClinicalEvidence is an Elicit alternative for pharma, CRO and medical affairs teams that need cited answers across ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO ICTRP and PubMed. It combines trial tables, status alerts and pooled team seats, with every sentence cited to an NCT number or PMID. Elicit is the better pick for a full systematic literature review of papers; ClinicalEvidence fits teams whose purchasing decision centers on trial registry evidence.
Elicit supports paper research and clinical trial screening. Its Clinical Trials announcement names ClinicalTrials.gov as the trial source and does not list EU CTR or WHO ICTRP. That distinction matters when your question covers programs outside the US, where registry records can inform the landscape before a journal paper appears.
ClinicalEvidence is not affiliated with Elicit. Choose according to the sources, deliverables and team workload your subscription needs to support.
Elicit's pricing page describes its paper research workflows and plan limits. Its Clinical Trials announcement describes registry screening and extraction. For features outside those published details, confirm with Elicit.
| Elicit | ClinicalEvidence | |
|---|---|---|
| Who it is for | Researchers searching papers, screening reviews and extracting study data | Clinical development, medical affairs, CRO, HEOR and academic trial teams |
| Price | Pro 49 USD per user per month billed annually; Scale 169 USD per user per month billed annually; 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 | Search across 138M+ papers; Clinical Trials uses ClinicalTrials.gov | ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO ICTRP, PubMed and PubMed Central open access full text where licenses allow |
| Trial registries | ClinicalTrials.gov, about 545 000 trials; for EU CTR or WHO ICTRP coverage, confirm with Elicit | ClinicalTrials.gov, EU CTR and WHO ICTRP; index refreshes daily |
| Citations | Clinical Trials extraction includes citations; for sentence level verification, confirm with Elicit | Every sentence cited to an NCT number or PMID, with automatic citation verification |
| Systematic review screening | Pro screens 5 000 papers; Enterprise screens 40 000 | Cited answers and trial tables; choose Elicit for a full systematic literature review of papers |
| Team seats | Scale includes real time collaboration, admin panel and seat management; priced per user | Research Team includes 3 seats, Organization 10, Enterprise up to 50 |
| Alerts | For new trial and status change alerts, confirm with Elicit | Alerts on new trials and status changes |
| Exports | For export formats, confirm with Elicit | CSV, RIS and BibTeX on every plan; XLSX and DOCX from Research Team |
| Best for | Systematic paper reviews and structured extraction from papers | Registry landscapes, cited trial answers and shared evidence work |
Elicit wins on its very large paper corpus, mature systematic review screening and paper extraction workflows. Pro includes custom extractions from uploaded papers, API access, 20 table columns and reports from up to 135 sources. Scale adds figure extraction, 5x usage, 30 columns and reports from up to 200 sources. Basic includes unlimited paper search, summaries, chat with papers and Zotero import, with limited Research Agent and Reports usage. Enterprise includes 40 columns, SSO/SAML and no training on your data by default.
Begin with a population, intervention and endpoint. Decide whether you need a trial landscape, posted results or publications that help interpret the evidence.
Use clinical trial search to investigate registered studies alongside the literature. The index covers ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO ICTRP, PubMed and PubMed Central open access full text where licenses allow, and refreshes daily.
For European programs, review the role of the EU Clinical Trials Register in your search scope. Registry coverage belongs in the research question before you compare summaries.
Read the cited answer and inspect its supporting passages. Automatic citation verification checks the references and support for each sentence. No verified source, no answer.
Inspect the trial table, compare interventions and return to the records before using a conclusion in your deliverable.
If you are comparing OpenEvidence too, review that comparison against the same source and team requirements.
Every sentence links to an NCT number or PMID. Open the source and assess whether the passage supports the claim you plan to use. Citation verification helps establish traceability; your team still evaluates study quality, relevance and whether the evidence supports the intended medical or research statement.
The trial table shows phase, population, interventions, endpoints, results posted, sponsor, status, enrollment, dates and locations. Review the results field before treating a planned endpoint as an observed finding. For feasibility work, inspect locations and enrollment alongside status, then check the source record before drawing an operational conclusion.
Intervention comparisons help teams examine the evidence behind competing approaches. Read them alongside the populations, endpoints and trial designs in the underlying studies. Results from separate studies require appraisal before you use them to support a treatment comparison or a development decision.
Alerts track new trials and status changes. Research Team adds shared workspaces, comments and roles, so colleagues can review evidence together. Export the table or references in your plan's formats when a landscape needs discussion outside the workspace. Revisit the cited records before revising a report after an alert.
For a paper screening project, review systematic review software requirements and choose Elicit when the deliverable is a full systematic literature review of papers. For broader scoping, consider how an AI literature review fits alongside registry research. A team can need both workflows without expecting the same subscription to replace every research method.
ClinicalEvidence carries no advertising. Monthly and yearly billing cover different team sizes and evidence workloads.
For three people, Elicit Scale costs 3 x 169 = 507 USD per month billed annually. Research Team covers 3 seats for 99 USD per month billed yearly. This compares the cost of equipping a trial workflow. The products do different jobs, so evaluate the registry work your team needs alongside Elicit's paper screening and extraction strengths. Check limits and billing on pricing.
ClinicalEvidence is a better fit when your priority is trial registry coverage and pooled team access. It searches ClinicalTrials.gov, EU CTR and WHO ICTRP alongside PubMed, with cited answers, trial tables and alerts. Elicit is the better pick for a full systematic literature review of papers.
Elicit's pricing page lists Pro at 49 USD per user per month billed annually, totaling 588 USD per year. Scale costs 169 USD per user per month billed annually, totaling 2 028 USD per year. Enterprise has custom pricing. For other billing terms, confirm with Elicit.
Yes. Elicit Clinical Trials searches ClinicalTrials.gov, covering about 545 000 trials, and is available to paying Elicit users. Users can screen protocol and registration information and extract custom data into tables with citations. Its announcement does not list EU CTR or WHO ICTRP; for coverage beyond ClinicalTrials.gov, confirm with Elicit.
Yes. Elicit is the better pick for a full systematic literature review of papers, with mature screening and data extraction workflows. Pro supports screening 5 000 papers, while Enterprise supports 40 000. Elicit also offers a very large paper corpus, Zotero import and API access, with figure extraction on Scale.
ClinicalEvidence is a strong Elicit alternative for pharma teams whose work centers on registered trials, cited answers and shared evidence review. It covers ClinicalTrials.gov, EU CTR and WHO ICTRP alongside PubMed. Research Team includes 3 seats and 800 pooled answers. The best choice depends on your sources and deliverables.
Yes. Use Elicit for systematic paper screening and extraction, and ClinicalEvidence for trial registry landscapes, cited answers and status alerts. This combination suits teams that need both published study appraisal and ongoing registry research. Check the underlying sources in each workflow before carrying conclusions into a medical response or research report.
Bring a current research question, inspect the citations and trial records, and choose the workspace that fits your team's evidence work.
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?