Cycling through all six. Tap any point to stop.

Measured on six things

AskMed answers clinical questions with citations from medical journals, guidelines and drug labels. Built for healthcare professionals. Paid subscription from $24.99/month.

Accessibility

No Lighthouse accessibility measurement was available this run. Indirect signals: 7-language localization, iOS/iPadOS/Android/Web coverage, and comfortably sized text in store screenshots. Scored in the category-typical band on uncertainty.

Screenshots

1 / 1

AskMed

About this app

AskMed is a medical AI reference assistant for doctors, nurses, medical students, pharmacists and researchers. Clinical answers include citations from peer-reviewed journals, clinical guidelines and official drug labels. Source filters and research tools help users find evidence faster. AI responses and citations can contain errors, so users should verify sources and current official guidance. Paid subscription from $24.99/month on iOS, iPadOS, Android and Web in 7 languages. Made by Loop Studio, founded by Quan Quach in Vietnam.

Key features

1Cited answers from journals, clinical guidelines (NICE, USPSTF, IDSA, ESC) and drug labels (FDA, DailyMed).
2Source filters to restrict a question to guidelines only or drug labels only.
3Research mode and Deep Dive evidence reports with 20+ sources on the Max tier.
4Available on iOS, iPadOS, Android and Web, localized in 7 languages.

Target customer profile

Drawn from the product itself, not from a survey.

Demographic

Medical students

Pain points

ChatGPT invents references; unreliable sources; app overload

Primary needs

Real citations for studies, clear explanations, exam prep

Demographic

Residents and physicians

Pain points

Slow manual searches; need trustworthy evidence during clinical work

Primary needs

Fast cited answers, guideline/drug label access, source filters

Demographic

Nurses and pharmacists

Pain points

Uncited AI outputs; interaction checks; night-shift knowledge gaps

Primary needs

Quick, verifiable answers, drug interaction info, no pharma bias

Scout Review

Written by AI from measured evidence, scored out of 100.

AskMed is a medical AI reference assistant aimed at students, residents, nurses and pharmacists, built around one sharp promise: every answer comes with real, clickable citations from journals, guidelines and drug labels. The app UI is credible and clinical; the security headers are solid; the positioning against ChatGPT is genuinely differentiated. What holds it back is detail discipline — overlapping UI elements, ambiguous composer controls, and a security posture that says 'HIPAA-conscious' without showing an audit. At $24.99/month it is priced like a serious tool, and it mostly behaves like one.

Measure by measure

Usability

App UI: standard Home/History/Saved tabs and a clear Ask Anything/Research toggle make navigation obvious. Empty-state suggestion cards help, but identical subtitles and a grey arrow that reads as disabled weaken the first-run flow.

Design

Judging the app UI from store screenshots: serif display type and a blue-teal palette read as credible and clinical. Citation chips sell the core value. Overlapping EVIDENCE card and duplicate suggestion subtitles cost polish.

Speed

No Lighthouse performance measurement completed this run, so load speed was not observed. No published benchmarks or lag complaints surfaced in the collected evidence. Scored in the category-typical band on uncertainty, not a found flaw.

Security

Probe scored 9/12: HSTS, CSP, frame protection, SPF and DMARC all present, though HTTPS enforcement and Permissions-Policy are missing. Site claims encrypted, never-sold conversations and is 'HIPAA-conscious' but names no SOC 2 or ISO audit.

Accessibility

Growth

Real, specific problem (AI-invented citations) with a concrete wedge: built-in guidelines and drug labels, year-tagged citations, source filters. Clear underserved segment. Early stage — domain 0.1 years old.

Improvement areas

UI polish: overlapping EVIDENCE card, duplicate suggestion subtitles, dual submit controls in the composer.
Security transparency: publish SOC 2, ISO or a pen-test summary instead of 'HIPAA-conscious.'
Accessibility: no WCAG statement or measured a11y data; add a public accessibility page.
Traction credibility: 250,000+ user claim vs. 7 App Store ratings needs reconciling.

Design & Usability

Judged on the app UI, not the marketing site: AskMed's screenshots show a deliberate clinical aesthetic — serif headlines, a restrained blue-teal palette, and numbered citation chips that make the sourced-answer promise visible before you read a word. Navigation is standard and legible, with Home/History/Saved tabs and an Ask Anything/Research toggle up top. The cracks are in the details: an EVIDENCE card overlapping the sources panel, two suggestion cards with identical subtitles, and a composer with two submit controls. None are fatal; all are the kind of thing a design pass fixes in an afternoon.

Speed & Security

Speed is unmeasured this run — no Lighthouse data completed, so there is no honest basis to praise or punish load times, and no published benchmarks or lag complaints surfaced. Security is the stronger story: the header probe scored 9/12 with HSTS, CSP, frame protection, SPF and DMARC in place, though HTTPS enforcement and Permissions-Policy are absent. The site claims encrypted, never-sold conversations and calls itself 'HIPAA-conscious,' but no SOC 2, ISO, or pen-test report is named — table-stakes transparency for a clinical tool, still missing.

Accessibility & Growth

Accessibility has no measured data this run, so the score rests on indirect signals: seven-language localization, four-platform coverage, and readable text in store screenshots — competent, unverified. Growth is the most interesting dimension. The problem AskMed names is real and specific: ChatGPT invents references, and clinicians cannot afford that. The wedge — built-in NICE, USPSTF, FDA and DailyMed sources with year-tagged citations and source filters — is concrete and hard for a general chatbot to copy quickly. The limit is trust: the whole pitch collapses if the citations are ever wrong, so the moat is accuracy, not features.

Conclusion

AskMed is chasing the right problem with the right wedge, and the app already looks like something a resident would actually keep on their home screen. The next 12 months decide everything: prove the citations hold up under real clinical scrutiny, publish a security audit, and clean up the UI collisions. Do that and this becomes a category contender. Skip it and it stays a very pretty promise.

Suggestions for improvement

Fix the EVIDENCE card overlapping the sources panel — in a citation-first product, the sources cannot be the thing getting covered.
Collapse the composer to a single submit control; the blue 'Ask' pill and grey arrow compete for the same tap.
Differentiate the two empty-state suggestion cards — identical subtitles read as placeholder content.
Publish a real security posture: SOC 2 or a pen-test summary beats 'HIPAA-conscious' for a clinical buyer.

How we score

Alternatives comparison

Named competitors, point by point. Nobody paid to appear here or to be left out.

	AskMed
Real, clickable citations on every answer	Yes — journals, guidelines, drug labels	Not specified	Not specified
Built-in clinical guidelines and drug labels	Yes — NICE, USPSTF, FDA, DailyMed	Not specified	Not specified
Source filters (guidelines-only / labels-only)	Yes	Not specified	Not specified
Platform coverage	iOS, iPadOS, Android, Web	Not specified	Not specified
Pricing	From $24.99/month	Not specified	Not specified