Know exactly where any medicine’s evidence stands against its rivals.

Evidence-graded comparisons for biopharma

The evidence on your medicine and its rivals, graded against everything published to date — so commercial decisions never fall behind the science.

UpadacitinibvsBimekizumab Live
Endpoint
Evidence favours
Basis
Certainty
Corpus
Last moved
Joint response in PsA
ACR20 · biologic-naive
Upadacitinib
Indirect
Likely · 75%
9 papers
12 May 2026
Candida infection risk
Class-wide safety
Upadacitinib
Indirect
Established · 95%
8 papers
28 April 2026
Cardiovascular safety
VTE and MACE profile
Bimekizumab
Indirect
Likely · 72%
19 papers
20 May 2026
Skin clearance, PASI 90
Psoriatic arthritis
Too close to call
Indirect
Uncertain · 48%
17 papers
6 May 2026
Axial spondyloarthritis
ASAS40 response
Too close to call
Indirect
Uncertain · 57%
8 papers
15 April 2026
78 papers reviewed · 3 more endpoints scored · updated 23 May 2026
How it works

Every claim is graded against the peer-reviewed literature by a four-agent panel, and anchored to a verbatim source or DOI. Built when you ask for it — not on a subscription clock.

01

Pick a medicine and its comparators

Your asset, plus the comparator brands your brand plan needs to answer to.

02

We assemble the evidence

Every relevant trial and paper from the published, peer-reviewed literature — public evidence only.

03

A four-agent panel grades every claim

Methodologist, Synthesist, Sceptic and Moderator debate it, then score it on a five-tier confidence scale.

04

You get a pack ready for medical review

Every number anchored to a verbatim source or DOI — built on demand, current the day it lands.

From evidence to action

Put the evidence to work.

Each medicine graded claim by claim against the peer-reviewed literature — turning evidence into conversations, plans and decisions.

01

Walk into every KOL meeting with the latest evidence

The latest science-backed summaries for each indication, across every key competitor — with the counter-evidence ready the moment a rival presents.

Evidence talking pointsLive
Upadacitinib vs Bimekizumab · rheumatology
Joint response, ACR20
Favours Upadacitinib
Stronger response in biologic-naive PsA across 9 papers, though the comparison is indirect.
Candida infection risk
Favours Upadacitinib
Markedly lower candida rates — the clearest mechanism-driven advantage.
Cardiovascular safety
Favours Bimekizumab
Bimekizumab leads under the JAK class warning; steer to PsA-specific event rates.
+ 9 more points across 4 competitors →
02

Grade every competitor readout

The morning a rival's data lands, it's graded on the same bar as your brand and stripped of press-release framing — so you see where it genuinely beats you and where it does not.

Competitor readoutsDe-spun
Bimekizumab · PsA advantageLancet · 5d
Press release: "practice-changing efficacy"
Established holds — genuinely beats you here
Dupilumab · durabilityJAMA Derm · 4d
Press release: "sustained long-term control"
Uncertain downgraded — not on your bar
35,506 papers scanned this week · next re-run Sunday
03

Export the latest evidence for a brand plan or medical review.

Select the claims you need and export a tiered, fully sourced evidence pack — straight into excel, slides or a document.

Export evidence pack
Higher skin clearance than dupilumabLikely6 src
Sustains remission through one yearEstablished9 src
Durability beyond 52 weeksUncertain3 src
XLSPPTXDOCX
Export 12 claims · 48 sources →
04

Decide where to invest next

A coverage map of your evidence against the field, endpoint by endpoint, with every gap quantified — so you decide where the next study is worth it.

Evidence coverage vs field
Skin clearance+32 ahead
You
Field
Durability beyond 52 weeks−18 behind
You
Field
Cardiovascular safety−46 behind
You
Field
Gap = your certainty minus the strongest competitor's, per endpoint. The data, not the verdict — where to invest is your call.
Traceable by design

Built for scrutiny and trust.

Most AI fabricates studies and sounds confident doing it. Stance is built the opposite way — adversarial, anchored to the literature, and guarded against fabrication.

01

A panel, not one model

Four agents review the evidence — a methodologist, a synthesist, a dedicated sceptic (Archie) who challenges the findings, and a moderator.

02

Built on the PICO standard

Matched on population, intervention, comparator and outcome — then graded on trial quality, not free text.

03

Traced to live literature

Every grade opens to the trials behind it. Nothing is asserted without a source you can read.

400+
Companies covered
1,200+
Medicines tracked
30+
Therapeutic areas
220M+
Papers indexed
See it in action

Choose two medicines. We grade the evidence.

Or try a popular matchup
Now choose the competitor to compare against
Common comparisons
stance — assembling comparison