Softwr

Research · head to head

Castor EDC vs OpenClinica

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
OpenClinica logo

OpenClinica

Healthcare

Clinical trial EDC with a genuinely open source community edition alongside a quoted commercial platform

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • 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.; OpenClinica the free community edition is a different and older product line from the commercial platform, so evaluating the open source build tells you little about what the paid product actually does.
  • They diverge on capability: Castor EDC covers Browser-based study build, OpenClinica covers Open source community edition.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

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

Attributes where Castor EDC and OpenClinica differ
AttributeCastor EDCOpenClinica
PlatformsWeb, iOS, AndroidWeb, Self-hosted, iOS, Android
CategoryResearchHealthcare

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), user rating (Not yet rated).

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
  • ePRO and surveys
  • Per-study licensing
  • Grant-funded pricing paths
  • Data export

Only in OpenClinica

  • Open source community edition
  • Electronic data capture
  • eCOA and ePRO
  • EHR-to-EDC
  • Audit trail
  • Reporting and analytics

Both cover

  • eConsent
  • Randomisation

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 OpenClinica
  • A medical device company collecting post-market clinical follow-up data with Part 11 audit trailsnot OpenClinica
  • A multi-site registry that needs remote eConsent because participants are recruited nationally rather than at a clinicnot OpenClinica
  • A biotech running a small phase two study that wants the database built by its own clinical team in weeks rather than commissionednot OpenClinica

OpenClinica

  • An academic coordinating centre running investigator-initiated trials that needs Part 11 compliant capture without an enterprise eClinical budgetnot Castor EDC
  • A registry or observational cohort study collecting structured data across many sites over yearsnot Castor EDC
  • A small device sponsor that needs eConsent and ePRO in the same system as its case report formsnot Castor EDC
  • An informatics group that wants to self-host the open source edition for a non-regulated internal studynot 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.

OpenClinica

  • The free community edition is a different and older product line from the commercial platform, so evaluating the open source build tells you little about what the paid product actually does.
  • The vendor provides no support or services at all for the community edition, which means outages, patching, database upgrades and validation documentation are entirely your problem.
  • Commercial pricing is not published, so you cannot benchmark it against alternatives without entering a sales process, and third-party figures around USD 1,000 a month are indicative rather than contractual.
  • Study build is skilled work: complex edit checks, randomisation schemes and integrations usually mean paying for vendor or consultant configuration services on top of the licence, which is a frequently underestimated line in the budget.
  • As a smaller vendor than the large eClinical suites it has a thinner partner and consultant ecosystem, so finding experienced build staff or a CRO already fluent in the platform is harder than with the market incumbents.

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

OpenClinica

On request
  • Community Edition$undefined/year
    • Free and open source under the LGPL
    • Self-hosted, on the older 3.x line
    • No vendor support or services of any kind
  • OpenClinica Enterprise$undefined/year
    • Pricing only through a sales process
    • Hosted and validated instance
    • EDC, eConsent, eCOA, randomisation and analytics modules

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 OpenClinica if

  • You need open source community edition.
  • You work on Web, Self-hosted, iOS, Android.
  • You also want electronic data capture.
OpenClinica review

Questions people ask

Is Castor EDC or OpenClinica better?
Neither clearly leads. Castor EDC starts at On request and OpenClinica at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Castor EDC or OpenClinica?
Castor EDC starts at On request and OpenClinica at On request.
Does Castor EDC or OpenClinica run on more platforms?
Castor EDC runs on Web, iOS, Android. OpenClinica runs on Web, Self-hosted, iOS, Android.
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 OpenClinica is typically brought in for.
What can Castor EDC do that OpenClinica cannot?
Castor EDC covers Browser-based study build, 21 CFR Part 11 workflows, ePRO and surveys, Per-study licensing. OpenClinica covers Open source community edition, Electronic data capture, eCOA and ePRO, EHR-to-EDC. Both handle eConsent, Randomisation.

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.

OpenClinica: Is OpenClinica free?

There is a genuinely free, LGPL licensed community edition you host yourself with no vendor support. The commercial platform with eConsent, eCOA and a validated hosted instance is quoted and paid.

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.

OpenClinica: Is the open source version still maintained?

Yes, releases on the 3.x line continued through 2025, but it is a separate and older architecture from the commercial product.

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.

OpenClinica: Does it meet 21 CFR Part 11?

The commercial hosted platform is built for Part 11 and GCP compliance. If you self-host the community edition, compliance and validation are entirely your responsibility.

Castor EDC: How long does a quote take?

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

OpenClinica: What does the commercial version cost?

Not published. Third-party listings suggest enterprise arrangements from around USD 1,000 per month, but real cost depends on study count, subjects, modules and build services.

Share

Related pages

More on Castor EDC

More on OpenClinica

Keep looking

Other head to heads