Last EHR vs Owkin

Last EHR and Owkin are both ai agent apps tracked by AIDiveForge. Below is a side-by-side comparison of pricing, capabilities, platforms, and ownership — sourced from each tool's live website and verified before publishing.

Last EHR

The tool wraps four FHIR operations — patient search, chart read, note creation, and observation recording — into a chat agent that runs as the signed-in user, bounded by whatever Medplum AccessPolicy you already have. Every write surfaces as an approval card showing exactly what will be saved before it touches the chart. The same four tools expose as an MCP server for Claude Desktop or Claude Code, read-only by default. The ceiling is visible early: four tools, one backend, one EHR platform. Teams that need more than that are writing their own.

Owkin

K Pro is an agentic AI scientist from Owkin that autonomously traverses multimodal biomedical data — genomics, spatial multi-omics, clinical trial records, competitive intelligence — and returns ranked, evidence-grounded answers to R&D questions. The vendor states it is trained on a proprietary multimodal patient data network and continuously refined by oncologists and biologists, which means its outputs are not generic literature summaries but claims tied to patient-level evidence. For target identification or patient stratification questions, that grounding matters. Where it breaks: teams that need to interrogate their own proprietary assay data or internal compound libraries will hit the edges of what K Pro's data network covers. The platform is not self-hosted, so data residency requirements that block cloud-based analysis force a different architecture entirely.

Attribute	Last EHR	Owkin
Pricing	Free	Paid
Price	—	Custom (contact vendor)
Free trial	No	180 days
Open source	Yes	No
Has API	Yes	Yes
Self-hosted option	Yes	No
Platforms	Web, self-hosted	Web-based SaaS; available on AWS Marketplace
Released	—	2025-05
Pros	Approval-gated writes — the agent proposes, you confirm, nothing saves silently — so you can prototype AI chart edits without a runaway write reaching a patient record. Runs as the signed-in Medplum user scoped by your existing AccessPolicy, which means you get access control for free instead of rebuilding it in the agent layer. Stores no patient data of its own, so there is no second compliance surface to audit or secure beyond what Medplum already covers. Provider-agnostic model key (OpenAI or Anthropic), so switching models is a single environment variable change rather than a code change when costs or output quality shift. MCP server mode exposes the same four tools to Claude Desktop or Claude Code read-only by default, so teams can wire AI chart access into existing developer tooling without building a separate integration.	Autonomous multi-step traversal of multimodal biomedical data — genomics, spatial biology, clinical records — so a target identification question that previously required a cross-functional team pulling data from separate systems returns as a ranked, evidence-backed report instead of a week-long sprint. Spatial multi-omics reporting built into the platform, which means tissue-context hypotheses that flat transcriptomic pipelines cannot express are answerable without standing up a separate analysis stack. Continuous refinement by a network of oncologists and biologists, so outputs carry domain validation rather than raw model outputs that a biology team must re-evaluate from scratch before trusting. API access available, so engineering teams can route K Pro's outputs into existing portfolio tracking or data warehouse pipelines rather than treating it as a standalone dashboard. A free-tier evaluation path, so a team can run real R&D questions against the platform before committing budget — avoiding the demo-looks-great, production-fails pattern that has burned previous tool adoptions.
Cons	The agent covers exactly four FHIR tools. Any clinical workflow that requires a fifth operation — scheduling, prior auth, document retrieval — hits a hard stop, and teams extend by forking the codebase, at which point they are maintaining their own agent layer. Medplum is the only supported FHIR backend. Teams running Azure Health Data Services, Google Cloud Healthcare API, or a self-hosted HAPI instance cannot use this without replacing the backend integration entirely — at which point they are evaluating tools built for backend-agnostic FHIR. A managed tier with BAA coverage is listed as in development and not yet available. Teams under HIPAA that cannot self-host and sign their own BAA with Medplum have no production-ready path here, and will move to a vendor with signed agreements in place.	Any question that depends on internal, unpublished compound data or proprietary assay results hits a hard wall: K Pro has no self-hosted option and no documented mechanism for ingesting datasets that cannot leave a team's infrastructure. Regulated pharma teams with data residency mandates are blocked entirely and evaluate federated or on-premise alternatives. The platform's strength is questions answerable from population-level biomedical evidence. Mechanistic hypotheses that require wet lab iteration loops beyond what Owkin's own infrastructure supports are not addressable through the tool alone — teams still need to maintain a separate experimental validation pipeline, which means K Pro becomes one input in a larger workflow rather than the workflow itself. Enterprise pricing is custom and opaque; teams cannot size budget against usage until they engage Owkin's sales process. For smaller biotech teams where procurement cycles are slow and headcount for vendor negotiation is limited, this blocks a fast build-vs-buy decision and pushes some teams toward academic or open-source tooling with predictable cost structures.

Bottom line

Last EHR is free while Owkin is paid; Last EHR is open source. Choose based on which difference matters most for your workflow.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Last EHR and Owkin?

Last EHR is Free and open source, while Owkin is Paid. Compare pricing, free trial, API, platforms, and pros/cons in the table above on AIDiveForge.

Is Last EHR better than Owkin?

It depends on your workflow. Use the side-by-side attributes (pricing, open source, API, self-hosted, platforms) to decide. AIDiveForge does not rank a universal winner — we publish verified facts so you can choose.

Last EHR vs Owkin: which should I pick?

Pick Last EHR if its pricing model, openness, or platform fit matches your constraints; pick Owkin otherwise. Check free-trial availability on each listing if you want to test before committing.

Comparison data is sourced and verified by the AIDiveForge data pipeline. AIDiveForge is editorially independent.