Comparison · building feasibility internally
Faster than your in-house feasibility cycle.
Plenty of CROs and sponsors run feasibility manually — analysts pulling ClinicalTrials.gov, building site lists, and assembling a deck. It works, but it is slow, hard to reproduce, and expensive per protocol. Here is how automation compares.
Side by side
An in-house feasibility team vs Clinical Trial OS.
The dimensions that decide a feasibility answer, on one row each. Our column is the emphasised one.
| Capability | An in-house feasibility team | Clinical Trial OS |
|---|---|---|
| Typical turnaround per protocol | Days to weeks | Hours |
| Every number cited to a public source | Varies | Yes |
| Reproducible months later | No | Yes |
| 21 CFR Part 11 audit trail by default | No | Yes |
| Analyst keeps judgement & sign-off | Yes | Yes |
| Marginal cost per additional protocol | High (analyst time) | Low (per-run) |
- Yes
- Varies by engagement
- No
The honest read
What they do well, and what we do differently.
Where An in-house feasibility team is strong
Your analysts bring context, relationships, and judgement a tool should augment, not replace. The goal is to take the manual data-gathering and citation grunt-work off their plate, not the decision.
Where we differ
- Hours instead of weeks per protocol, so feasibility fits inside the bid window.
- Every number is cited and the run is reproducible — no more "where did this site count come from?" six weeks later.
- A Part 11 audit trail by default, instead of a spreadsheet whose provenance is gone by the next reorg.
- Your analysts review and sign off on a pre-cited draft rather than assembling it from scratch.
This comparison reflects our understanding of typical offerings and is provided in good faith; vendor capabilities change, so verify current details with each provider. All product names, logos, and trademarks are the property of their respective owners and are used for identification only.
Other comparisons
See a cited verdict against your own protocol.
Send us a protocol — or just a molecule and an indication. We'll return a fully cited feasibility assessment you can trace, line by line, back to public data — yours to defend in a bid, take to your board or investment committee, or hand to a regulator.