Softwr

Research · head to head

Castor EDC vs Schrodinger

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
Schrodinger logo

Schrodinger

Research

Physics based molecular modelling and drug discovery software, licensed by token pool

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.; Schrodinger licences are sold as token pools rather than unlimited module access, so a department can be blocked mid campaign because colleagues are consuming concurrency, and expanding the pool is a new commercial negotiation rather than a setting.
  • They diverge on capability: Castor EDC covers Browser-based study build, Schrodinger covers Maestro.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

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

Attributes where Castor EDC and Schrodinger differ
AttributeCastor EDCSchrodinger
PlatformsWeb, iOS, AndroidLinux, macOS, Windows, Web

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), 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 Schrodinger

  • Maestro
  • Glide
  • FEP+
  • Desmond
  • Jaguar
  • LiveDesign
  • Materials Science suite

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

Schrodinger

  • A medicinal chemistry programme using FEP+ to prioritise which analogues to synthesise, where avoiding a handful of wasted syntheses pays for the licencenot Castor EDC
  • A structure based design campaign that needs docking at scale against a target with a good crystal structurenot Castor EDC
  • A materials group modelling polymer or electrolyte properties before committing to formulation experimentsnot Castor EDC
  • A university modelling group that qualifies for the published academic site licence and needs Maestro across a teaching and research cohortnot 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.

Schrodinger

  • Licences are sold as token pools rather than unlimited module access, so a department can be blocked mid campaign because colleagues are consuming concurrency, and expanding the pool is a new commercial negotiation rather than a setting.
  • Commercial pricing is not published and is negotiated against modules, cores and term, so two companies of similar size can pay very different amounts and neither can benchmark the other.
  • FEP+ needs substantial GPU capacity that is not included in the licence, so the real annual cost includes cloud or on premise hardware that often rivals the software line item.
  • The tools require trained computational chemists to produce trustworthy results, and an organisation without that function will generate predictions it cannot interpret or defend to its own medicinal chemists.
  • Schrodinger runs its own internal drug discovery pipeline alongside selling software to discovery companies, and some prospective customers treat that dual role as a conflict when discussing proprietary targets, which slows procurement even where contractual separation exists.

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

Schrodinger

On request
  • Commercial licence$undefined/year
    • Quoted per customer against modules, cores and licence term
    • Applications draw from a shared token pool that caps concurrency
    • GPU compute for FEP+ and Desmond is a separate cost, on premise or cloud
  • Academic site licence$undefined/year
    • Published academic entry around 7,500 USD a year for a premium package with a token allocation
    • Restricted to academic and research use, not work supporting a commercial enterprise
    • Maestro generally unrestricted with tokens shared for compute heavy applications

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 Schrodinger if

  • You need maestro.
  • You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Web.
  • You also want glide.
Schrodinger review

Questions people ask

Is Castor EDC or Schrodinger better?
Neither clearly leads. Castor EDC starts at On request and Schrodinger at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Castor EDC or Schrodinger?
Castor EDC starts at On request and Schrodinger at On request.
Does Castor EDC or Schrodinger run on more platforms?
Castor EDC runs on Web, iOS, Android. Schrodinger runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Web.
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 Schrodinger is typically brought in for.
What can Castor EDC do that Schrodinger cannot?
Castor EDC covers Browser-based study build, 21 CFR Part 11 workflows, eConsent, ePRO and surveys. Schrodinger covers Maestro, Glide, FEP+, Desmond.

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.

Schrodinger: How is Schrodinger software licensed?

Annual licences with a shared token pool. Tokens cap how much you can run at once rather than which modules you own outright.

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.

Schrodinger: Is there published pricing?

Only for academic site licences, which start around 7,500 USD a year for a premium package. Commercial pricing is quoted.

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.

Schrodinger: Do I need my own GPUs?

For FEP+ and Desmond in practice yes, or cloud GPU capacity. Compute is not included in the licence.

Castor EDC: How long does a quote take?

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

Schrodinger: Does Schrodinger compete with its customers?

It runs its own drug pipeline as well as selling software. It manages this through contractual separation, but buyers with sensitive targets should raise it during procurement.

Share

Related pages

More on Castor EDC

More on Schrodinger

Keep looking

Other head to heads