Which is better tolerated, Eliquis (apixaban) or Xarelto (rivaroxaban)?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: November 13, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Apixaban (Eliquis) is Better Tolerated Than Rivaroxaban (Xarelto)

Based on the most recent and highest quality evidence, apixaban demonstrates superior tolerability compared to rivaroxaban, with significantly lower discontinuation rates and reduced bleeding complications.

Discontinuation Rates and Tolerability

Apixaban has consistently demonstrated better tolerability with lower rates of treatment discontinuation across multiple trials:

  • In the ARISTOTLE trial, apixaban showed fewer early discontinuations compared to warfarin (25.3% vs. 27.5%), indicating good tolerability 1.

  • In the AVERROES trial, apixaban was significantly better tolerated than aspirin, with permanent discontinuation rates of 17.9% per year versus 20.5% per year for aspirin at 2 years (P = 0.03) 1.

  • Rivaroxaban, by contrast, had higher premature discontinuation rates than warfarin in the ROCKET-AF trial (23.9% vs. 22.4%), suggesting poorer tolerability 1.

Bleeding Risk Profile

The bleeding profile strongly favors apixaban, which directly impacts tolerability and patient continuation of therapy:

  • A 2021 large-scale Medicare study of 581,451 patients found rivaroxaban was associated with significantly increased risk of nonfatal extracranial bleeding compared to apixaban (39.7 vs. 18.5 per 1000 person-years; HR 2.07,95% CI 1.99-2.15) 2.

  • Rivaroxaban showed increased fatal extracranial bleeding compared to apixaban (1.4 vs. 1.0 per 1000 person-years; HR 1.41,95% CI 1.18-1.70) 2.

  • The same study demonstrated rivaroxaban had higher rates of major hemorrhagic events (7.5 vs. 5.9 per 1000 person-years; RD 1.6, HR 1.26) 2.

  • Real-world observational data showed rivaroxaban had significantly higher major bleeding risk compared to dabigatran (HR 1.38,95% CI 1.27-1.49), while apixaban demonstrated lower major bleeding rates overall 1.

Gastrointestinal Tolerability

Gastrointestinal side effects represent a major tolerability concern that differentiates these agents:

  • Rivaroxaban was associated with increased gastrointestinal bleeding and bleeds requiring transfusion in the ROCKET-AF trial 1.

  • Multiple guidelines note rivaroxaban's association with higher gastrointestinal bleeding rates, particularly in elderly patients 1.

  • Apixaban showed similar gastrointestinal bleeding rates to warfarin in the ARISTOTLE trial, without the excess seen with rivaroxaban 1.

Clinical Outcomes Affecting Tolerability

The most recent head-to-head comparison provides definitive evidence:

  • The 2021 Medicare study found rivaroxaban was associated with increased total mortality compared to apixaban (44.2 vs. 41.0 per 1000 person-years; HR 1.06,95% CI 1.02-1.09) 2.

  • This mortality difference persisted across both standard and reduced dose regimens 2.

  • The composite primary outcome of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events was significantly higher with rivaroxaban (16.1 vs. 13.4 per 1000 person-years; HR 1.18,95% CI 1.12-1.24) 2.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

When selecting between these agents, avoid these errors:

  • Do not assume equivalent tolerability based on both being factor Xa inhibitors—the clinical data clearly differentiate them 2.

  • Do not overlook the substantially higher extracranial bleeding risk with rivaroxaban, which is the most common reason for discontinuation 2.

  • Remember that rivaroxaban's once-daily dosing advantage is offset by its poorer safety and tolerability profile 1, 2.

  • Be particularly cautious with rivaroxaban in elderly patients and those with reduced renal function, where bleeding risk is amplified 1, 2.

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.