Softwr

Healthcare · head to head

Fullscript vs Signant Health

Fullscript logo

Fullscript

Healthcare

Supplement dispensing for practitioners, free to use because it earns on the products

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Signant Health logo

Signant Health

Healthcare

eCOA-first clinical trial platform that has grown outward into EDC, eConsent and televisits

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Only Fullscript has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: Fullscript the practitioner sets their own margin on products they clinically recommend, which is a conflict of interest that some professional bodies and patients view badly, and the platform makes the arrangement easy rather than making it visible.; Signant Health no pricing is published, and the software licence is a minority of the real bill once instrument licensing, translations, device provisioning and services are added, so early budget estimates are routinely too low.
  • They diverge on capability: Fullscript covers Protocol dispensing, Signant Health covers eCOA and ePRO.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Fullscript and Signant Health actually diverge.

Attributes where Fullscript and Signant Health differ
AttributeFullscriptSignant Health
Starting priceFreeOn request
Pricing modelPer user per monthquote
Free tierYesNo

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

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 Fullscript

  • Protocol dispensing
  • Profit dispensary
  • Auto refill
  • Lab ordering
  • Patient app
  • EHR integration
  • Enterprise catalogue control

Only in Signant Health

  • eCOA and ePRO
  • Unified platform
  • eConsent
  • Randomisation and supplies
  • TeleVisits
  • Rater training
  • Data surveillance
  • Instrument library

What people use each for

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

Fullscript

  • A functional medicine practice that wants to stop holding supplement stock, cash and expiry risk in the clinicnot Signant Health
  • A dietitian or naturopath adding a dispensary revenue stream without buying inventory upfrontnot Signant Health
  • A clinic that needs patients to actually keep taking a protocol, where auto refills and dose reminders address the adherence problem directlynot Signant Health
  • A multi site integrative health group that wants a single approved catalogue rather than each clinician choosing their own brandsnot Signant Health

Signant Health

  • A central nervous system or psychiatry trial where the primary endpoint is a rated scale and rater consistency decides the readoutnot Fullscript
  • A global study needing an outcome instrument translated and linguistically validated across a dozen languagesnot Fullscript
  • A decentralised or hybrid protocol combining televisits, eConsent and at-home patient reported outcomesnot Fullscript
  • A sponsor consolidating separate eCOA, eConsent and randomisation vendors onto one platform to cut reconciliation worknot Fullscript

Where each one falls short

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

Fullscript

  • The practitioner sets their own margin on products they clinically recommend, which is a conflict of interest that some professional bodies and patients view badly, and the platform makes the arrangement easy rather than making it visible.
  • The account is free but the practice does not control pricing, catalogue, shipping cost or the patient discount, so the entire economics of the dispensary can be changed by the vendor without the practice having any lever.
  • Converting to a profit account requires personal identity verification, tax details and a bank account, and makes dispensary earnings the practitioner personal taxable income to report, which is administrative work no one warns about at signup.
  • Product availability and shipping are geographically limited, so practices outside the supported countries cannot use it at all and cross border patients will find items unavailable at checkout.
  • Patient refill schedules, plan history and a slice of practice revenue accumulate inside a platform the practice cannot export in a form another dispensary would accept, so switching later means asking every patient to re-enrol somewhere else.

Signant Health

  • No pricing is published, and the software licence is a minority of the real bill once instrument licensing, translations, device provisioning and services are added, so early budget estimates are routinely too low.
  • Linguistic validation is charged per instrument per language and is on the critical path to first patient in, so adding a country late in start-up produces both a cost and a schedule hit.
  • Provisioned participant devices bring logistics, replacement, shipping and cellular connectivity obligations that persist for the life of the trial and are frequently underestimated.
  • The EDC component is newer than the eCOA heritage, so sponsors with complex data management requirements often keep an incumbent EDC and lose the single-database benefit that justifies the platform.
  • It is priced and scoped for sponsor-grade trials, which makes it a poor fit for investigator-initiated or academic studies that need outcome collection without the services layer.

Pricing, plan by plan

Fullscript

Free
  • PractitionerFree
    • Full catalogue and dispensing at no account fee
    • Lab ordering and results
    • Standard EHR integrations
  • PatientFree
    • No account fee
    • Mobile app with dose reminders
    • Auto refills, cancellable at any time
  • Enterprise$undefined/year
    • Quoted for health systems and multi site groups
    • Centrally managed catalogue with quality standards
    • API level EHR integration

Signant Health

On request
  • SmartSignals Unified Platform$undefined/year
    • Priced per study through a sales process
    • Modules selected per protocol: EDC, eCOA, randomisation, eConsent, TeleVisits
    • Instrument licensing paid to scale owners on top of platform cost

Which should you pick?

Choose Fullscript if

  • You need protocol dispensing.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want profit dispensary.
Fullscript review

Choose Signant Health if

  • You need ecoa and epro.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want unified platform.
Signant Health review

Questions people ask

Is Fullscript or Signant Health better?
Neither clearly leads. Fullscript starts at Free and Signant Health at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Fullscript or Signant Health?
Fullscript has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for Fullscript and On request for Signant Health.
Does Fullscript or Signant Health run on more platforms?
Both run on Web, iOS, Android, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
Can I use Fullscript for free?
Yes. Fullscript has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Signant Health starts at On request.
What is Fullscript best used for?
Fullscript is most often used for a functional medicine practice that wants to stop holding supplement stock, cash and expiry risk in the clinic, a dietitian or naturopath adding a dispensary revenue stream without buying inventory upfront, a clinic that needs patients to actually keep taking a protocol, where auto refills and dose reminders address the adherence problem directly, a multi site integrative health group that wants a single approved catalogue rather than each clinician choosing their own brands. Of those, a functional medicine practice that wants to stop holding supplement stock, cash and expiry risk in the clinic and a dietitian or naturopath adding a dispensary revenue stream without buying inventory upfront are not what Signant Health is typically brought in for.
What can Fullscript do that Signant Health cannot?
Fullscript covers Protocol dispensing, Profit dispensary, Auto refill, Lab ordering. Signant Health covers eCOA and ePRO, Unified platform, eConsent, Randomisation and supplies.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Fullscript: Is Fullscript really free for practitioners?

Yes, the account has no fee. Fullscript earns on the supplements sold through it, and a practitioner on a profit account also earns a margin on those sales.

Signant Health: What is Signant best at?

Electronic clinical outcome assessment, particularly rated scales in central nervous system and psychiatry trials, together with rater training and endpoint quality services.

Fullscript: How do practitioners make money on it?

By converting to a profit dispensary and setting a margin. That requires tax information and a bank account, and the earnings are taxable income.

Signant Health: Is pricing published?

No. Everything is quoted per study, and instrument licences, translations and devices sit on top of the platform cost.

Fullscript: What do patients pay?

No account fee, and a ten per cent discount on orders if the practitioner runs a no profit dispensary rather than taking a margin.

Signant Health: Can I use it only for eCOA?

Yes. The modules are selected per protocol, and many sponsors take eCOA and eConsent while keeping an existing EDC.

Fullscript: Is there an enterprise option?

Yes, quoted for health systems, adding central catalogue control, API EHR integration and cross site reporting.

Signant Health: What drives the timeline?

Translation and linguistic validation of outcome instruments, which is per language per instrument and sits on the critical path to study start.

Share

Related pages

More on Fullscript

More on Signant Health

Keep looking

Other head to heads