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.
| Capability | An in-house feasibility team | Clinical Trial OS |
|---|---|---|
| Typical turnaround per protocol | Days to weeks | Hours |
| Every number cited to a public source | ||
| Reproducible months later | ||
| 21 CFR Part 11 audit trail by default | ||
| Analyst keeps judgement & sign-off | ||
| Marginal cost per additional protocol | High (analyst time) | Low (per-run) |
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.
See a cited verdict against your own protocol.
Send us a protocol. We'll return a fully cited feasibility verdict you can trace, line by line, back to public data — yours to white-label, defend in a bid, or hand to a regulator.