← Journal
EN 8 mai 2026 · 8 min
OpenClaw vs Claude Agents: A Benchmark on 5 Medical Workflows
We ran the same five medical admin workflows through OpenClaw, Claude Managed Agents and a baseline rule-based system. Here is what we found.
We picked five high-friction workflows that French private practitioners face every week:
- APA file completion
- Consultation note pre-drafting
- Patient email triage and response
- Mutual / third-party payment cover check
- Real-time patient ↔ practitioner translation (FR/EN)
For each we ran the same prompt corpus through OpenClaw and Claude Managed Agents, with a rule-based baseline as the floor.
Headline numbers
| Workflow | Baseline | OpenClaw | Claude Agents |
|---|---|---|---|
| APA file completion (time saved) | — | 41 % | 47 % |
| Note pre-draft (acceptance rate) | — | 64 % | 78 % |
| Patient email triage (precision) | 71 % | 88 % | 92 % |
| Mutual cover check (false positives) | 12 % | 4 % | 3 % |
| FR↔EN translation (BLEU on medical set) | 21 | 38 | 42 |
What it really tells you
The headline gap is real but modest. The harder truth is operational:
- Latency variance matters more than mean latency in clinical workflows.
- Audit trail completeness is what makes the system pass the medical committee — not raw accuracy.
- Human escalation policy is the single biggest lever for adoption.
We deploy Claude Managed Agents as the orchestrator and OpenClaw as a specialist tool. The right answer is rarely “one agent” — it is composition.
- Benchmark
- Claude Agents
- OpenClaw
- Workflows