Softwr

Research · head to head

Castor EDC vs Suzy

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
Suzy logo

Suzy

Research

Enterprise consumer insights on an owned US panel, resold elsewhere through Cint

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.; Suzy the proprietary Crowdtap panel is US only at around a million consumers with roughly 50,000 verified active monthly, and everything international is resold Cint supply, so the speed and verification argument that justifies the price applies to one market.
  • They diverge on capability: Castor EDC covers Browser-based study build, Suzy covers Suzy Insights.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

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

Attributes where Castor EDC and Suzy differ
AttributeCastor EDCSuzy

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

  • Suzy Insights
  • Suzy Live
  • Suzy Audiences
  • Suzy Speaks
  • Video open ends
  • Advanced methods
  • Data Explorer
  • AI Decision Engine

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

Suzy

  • A US consumer packaged goods brand that needs concept testing back the same day because a packaging decision is due at the end of the week.not Castor EDC
  • An insights department running an always-on brand tracker on a US audience without re-commissioning fieldwork every wave.not Castor EDC
  • A team that wants quant screening followed immediately by moderated qual with the same respondents, rather than two vendors and two timelines.not Castor EDC
  • A product team testing claims and price sensitivity with MaxDiff and conjoint on a panel they can go back to repeatedly.not 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.

Suzy

  • The proprietary Crowdtap panel is US only at around a million consumers with roughly 50,000 verified active monthly, and everything international is resold Cint supply, so the speed and verification argument that justifies the price applies to one market.
  • Customers have asked Suzy to build proprietary panels with native speakers in Germany, France, Japan, India and Brazil, which confirms those do not exist today; multi-market brands need a second vendor and lose the single-source comparison.
  • Reviewers report the panel skews female and millennial and falls short on Gen Z, male and various ethnic segments, and that niche or B2B audiences are hard to reach, so quota fills can be slow or impossible.
  • Reviewers also raise data trust concerns about respondent sourcing and vetting, including one naming bot responses and acquiescence bias, which is the standing risk of any single owned opt-in panel with repeat respondents.
  • Pricing is a sales-led annual commitment reported to run around $88,000 a year at the median with onboarding fees and per-seat charges on top, with no trial, no self-serve and no pay-per-response option, so there is no cheap way to validate fit.
  • Credits are pre-committed monthly against forecast activity with no published overage rate, so under-use is wasted spend and a busy quarter triggers an unbudgeted purchase.
  • Integrations are genuinely thin: there is no public integrations page and no public API documentation, and the only confirmed external data relationship is Cint, so expect to move data by export.

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

Suzy

On request
  • Suzy$undefined/year
    • Annual subscription with pre-committed monthly research credits
    • Credit volume set against forecast study activity
    • Onboarding fees and per-seat charges quoted separately

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 Suzy if

  • You need suzy insights.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want suzy live.
Suzy review

Questions people ask

Is Castor EDC or Suzy better?
Neither clearly leads. Castor EDC starts at On request and Suzy at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Castor EDC or Suzy?
Castor EDC starts at On request and Suzy at On request.
Does Castor EDC or Suzy run on more platforms?
Both run on Web, iOS, Android, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
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 Suzy is typically brought in for.
What can Castor EDC do that Suzy cannot?
Castor EDC covers Browser-based study build, 21 CFR Part 11 workflows, eConsent, ePRO and surveys. Suzy covers Suzy Insights, Suzy Live, Suzy Audiences, Suzy Speaks.

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.

Suzy: Is the panel global?

No. Crowdtap, the owned panel, is US only. International studies run on Cint supply, which you could contract for directly.

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.

Suzy: What does it cost?

Nothing is published. Third-party analysis puts the median contract around $88,000 a year with a range roughly $34,000 to $187,500, plus onboarding and per-seat fees.

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.

Suzy: Is there an API?

Nothing public. Suzy publishes no API documentation and no named connectors beyond Cint. Verify any integration requirement in the sales call before committing.

Castor EDC: How long does a quote take?

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

Suzy: What changed in April 2026?

Suzy repositioned as an AI Decision Engine with Intelligence and Impact modules, while headcount fell from about 230 to 186. Ask how the roadmap is now split between that and the classic survey and qual products.

Share

Related pages

More on Castor EDC

More on Suzy

Keep looking

Other head to heads