Softwr

Research · head to head

Castor EDC vs LabArchives

Castor EDC logo

Castor EDC

Research

Electronic data capture and eConsent for clinical trials, built for investigator-initiated studies as well as sponsors

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
LabArchives logo

LabArchives

Research

Electronic lab notebook with witnessing, version history and long-term institutional retention

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Only LabArchives has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: Castor EDC nothing is published: pricing is quoted only after a scoping call and protocol review, so budgeting a grant application means asking for a quote months before the study is funded and hoping the scope holds.; LabArchives the corporate rate is roughly 75 per cent above the academic rate for the same product, so a university spinout crossing into commercial status faces a step change in cost at exactly the point its budget is tightest.
  • They diverge on capability: Castor EDC covers Browser-based study build, LabArchives covers Versioned entries.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Castor EDC and LabArchives actually diverge.

Attributes where Castor EDC and LabArchives differ
AttributeCastor EDCLabArchives
Starting priceOn requestFree
Pricing modelquotePer user per year
Free tierNoYes

Identical on both: platforms (Web, iOS, Android), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Research).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Castor EDC

  • Browser-based study build
  • 21 CFR Part 11 workflows
  • eConsent
  • ePRO and surveys
  • Randomisation
  • Per-study licensing
  • Grant-funded pricing paths
  • Data export

Only in LabArchives

  • Versioned entries
  • Witnessing and signing
  • Inventory
  • Scheduler
  • Education edition
  • Single sign-on
  • Structured data entry
  • DOI and repository publishing

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Castor EDC

  • An academic hospital running an investigator-initiated trial that cannot fund a sponsor-grade EDC contract or a data management CROnot LabArchives
  • A medical device company collecting post-market clinical follow-up data with Part 11 audit trailsnot LabArchives
  • A multi-site registry that needs remote eConsent because participants are recruited nationally rather than at a clinicnot LabArchives
  • A biotech running a small phase two study that wants the database built by its own clinical team in weeks rather than commissionednot LabArchives

LabArchives

  • A university group that must keep research records after a PhD student leaves, rather than losing them with a laptopnot Castor EDC
  • A core facility that needs instrument booking and a shared record of who ran what and whennot Castor EDC
  • A small biotech building patent-defensible evidence of invention with witnessed, timestamped entriesnot Castor EDC
  • A teaching department running undergraduate laboratory courses where instructors need to see and grade notebook worknot Castor EDC

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Castor EDC

  • Nothing is published: pricing is quoted only after a scoping call and protocol review, so budgeting a grant application means asking for a quote months before the study is funded and hoping the scope holds.
  • Price scales on protocol complexity rather than a simple unit, so two studies with the same participant count can be quoted very differently and there is no public benchmark to argue against.
  • Modules such as eConsent, ePRO and randomisation are quoted on top of the base platform, so the headline EDC figure is rarely the number that appears on the final proposal.
  • It is deliberately lighter than the full sponsor suites, so a study that grows into a global registrational programme needing integrated CTMS, safety, IRT and full trial supply management will need additional systems and the interfaces between them.
  • Regulatory responsibility does not transfer with the software: the platform supports Part 11 compliant workflows, but system validation for your intended use, SOPs and audit readiness remain your obligation and your cost, which sponsors new to EDC consistently underestimate.

LabArchives

  • The corporate rate is roughly 75 per cent above the academic rate for the same product, so a university spinout crossing into commercial status faces a step change in cost at exactly the point its budget is tightest.
  • Inventory and Scheduler are separate per-user line items, so a lab that assumed one price per person for a working system ends up paying two or three.
  • It is now a Dotmatics product inside a large scientific software portfolio, which puts roadmap priority with enterprise pharmaceutical buyers rather than with the academic labs that made it popular.
  • The interface is functional rather than pleasant, and adoption typically fails not on features but on researchers quietly continuing to keep notes elsewhere; you need a mandate, not a rollout email.
  • Instrument integration is thin compared with dedicated laboratory information management systems, so automated capture from analytical equipment usually still means manual upload or custom scripting.

Pricing, plan by plan

Castor EDC

On request
  • Castor EDC$undefined/year
    • Priced per study on protocol complexity, duration, sites and modules
    • 21 CFR Part 11 and ICH GCP workflows
    • eConsent, ePRO and randomisation modules quoted separately

LabArchives

Free
  • FreeFree
    • Limited storage
    • Core notebook and versioning
    • Intended for evaluation and individual use
  • Professional (Academic)$330/year
    • Full ELN with witnessing and signing
    • Academic rate per user per year
    • Corporate rate is $575 per user per year
  • ELN plus Inventory bundle$360/year
    • Notebook plus sample and reagent inventory
    • Academic rate; corporate rate is $675 per user per year
  • Inventory standalone$99/year
    • Sample tracking without the notebook
    • Academic rate; corporate rate is $199 per user per year

Which should you pick?

Choose Castor EDC if

  • You need browser-based study build.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want 21 cfr part 11 workflows.
Castor EDC review

Choose LabArchives if

  • You need versioned entries.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want witnessing and signing.
LabArchives review

Questions people ask

Is Castor EDC or LabArchives better?
Neither clearly leads. Castor EDC starts at On request and LabArchives at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Castor EDC or LabArchives?
LabArchives has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at On request for Castor EDC and Free for LabArchives.
Does Castor EDC or LabArchives run on more platforms?
Both run on Web, iOS, Android, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
Can I use LabArchives for free?
Yes. LabArchives has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Castor EDC starts at On request.
What is Castor EDC best used for?
Castor EDC is most often used for an academic hospital running an investigator-initiated trial that cannot fund a sponsor-grade edc contract or a data management cro, a medical device company collecting post-market clinical follow-up data with part 11 audit trails, a multi-site registry that needs remote econsent because participants are recruited nationally rather than at a clinic, a biotech running a small phase two study that wants the database built by its own clinical team in weeks rather than commissioned. Of those, an academic hospital running an investigator-initiated trial that cannot fund a sponsor-grade edc contract or a data management cro and a medical device company collecting post-market clinical follow-up data with part 11 audit trails are not what LabArchives is typically brought in for.
What can Castor EDC do that LabArchives cannot?
Castor EDC covers Browser-based study build, 21 CFR Part 11 workflows, eConsent, ePRO and surveys. LabArchives covers Versioned entries, Witnessing and signing, Inventory, Scheduler.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Castor EDC: Is there a free academic version?

No published free tier. There are academic, non-profit and grant-funded pricing paths, but each is quoted rather than self-service.

LabArchives: Does LabArchives satisfy patent evidence requirements?

Its versioning, timestamping and witnessed signatures are designed for that purpose, and it is widely accepted for it, but the legal weight depends on your institution's process being followed, not on the software alone.

Castor EDC: Is it 21 CFR Part 11 compliant?

It supports Part 11 compliant workflows with audit trails and electronic signatures. Validating the system for your specific use remains your responsibility.

LabArchives: Who owns LabArchives?

Dotmatics. The product is branded LabArchives by Dotmatics and shares that company's corporate footprint.

Castor EDC: Do I need a programmer to build a study?

No. Case report forms are configured in the browser, which is the main reason academic groups adopt it.

LabArchives: Is there really a free tier?

Yes, with limited storage. It is suitable for trialling or a single researcher, not for a group that needs retention guarantees.

Castor EDC: How long does a quote take?

Castor states a full pricing proposal within five business days of sharing the protocol.

LabArchives: Can we export everything if we leave?

Yes, notebooks export in bulk, but exported archives lose much of the interactive structure, so treat the export as an archive rather than as a migration path into another ELN.

Share

Related pages

More on Castor EDC

More on LabArchives

Keep looking

Other head to heads