Softwr

Research · head to head

DNAnexus vs Schrodinger

DNAnexus logo

DNAnexus

Research

Regulated cloud platform for genomic and multiomic data, with GxP and FedRAMP coverage

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: DNAnexus no pricing is published, so an organisation cannot compare the total cost against running the same pipelines on its own cloud account until it is deep in a sales process.; 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: DNAnexus covers Governed data storage, Schrodinger covers Maestro.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which DNAnexus and Schrodinger actually diverge.

Attributes where DNAnexus and Schrodinger differ
AttributeDNAnexusSchrodinger
PlatformsWeb, LinuxLinux, 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 DNAnexus

  • Governed data storage
  • Workflow execution
  • App building
  • Controlled collaboration
  • Compliance posture
  • Cohort browsing

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.

DNAnexus

  • A clinical diagnostics laboratory that needs a CLIA and CAP aligned environment for production sequencing pipelines without building the compliance evidence itselfnot Schrodinger
  • A pharma sponsor analysing genomic endpoints in a registrational programme where 21 CFR Part 11 records are requirednot Schrodinger
  • A biobank or consortium giving hundreds of external researchers governed access to a dataset too large to distributenot Schrodinger
  • A diagnostics vendor packaging its pipeline as a versioned app so partner laboratories can run it without receiving the source codenot 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 DNAnexus
  • A structure based design campaign that needs docking at scale against a target with a good crystal structurenot DNAnexus
  • A materials group modelling polymer or electrolyte properties before committing to formulation experimentsnot DNAnexus
  • A university modelling group that qualifies for the published academic site licence and needs Maestro across a teaching and research cohortnot DNAnexus

Where each one falls short

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

DNAnexus

  • No pricing is published, so an organisation cannot compare the total cost against running the same pipelines on its own cloud account until it is deep in a sales process.
  • Compute and storage are billed through the platform rather than at underlying cloud list price, so the compliance envelope carries a persistent margin on every terabyte and core hour, which grows with the science rather than staying fixed.
  • Data egress at genomic scale is slow and chargeable, so leaving the platform later is a real project rather than a contract decision, and that gravity weakens negotiating position at renewal.
  • The regulated and validated configurations sit in a higher commercial tier than the research configuration, so an organisation that starts in research mode and later needs GxP faces a repricing rather than a setting change.
  • Bioinformaticians used to running Nextflow on their own infrastructure find the platform abstractions constraining, and porting an existing pipeline into the app model is engineering work that does not carry over to any other platform.

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

DNAnexus

On request
  • DNAnexus Platform$undefined/year
    • Quoted per organisation through a sales process
    • Storage and compute billed through the platform rather than at cloud list price
    • Regulated and validated configurations are a separate commercial tier

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 DNAnexus if

  • You need governed data storage.
  • You work on Web, Linux.
  • You also want workflow execution.
DNAnexus review

Choose Schrodinger if

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

Questions people ask

Is DNAnexus or Schrodinger better?
Neither clearly leads. DNAnexus 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, DNAnexus or Schrodinger?
DNAnexus starts at On request and Schrodinger at On request.
Does DNAnexus or Schrodinger run on more platforms?
DNAnexus runs on Web, Linux. Schrodinger runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Web.
What is DNAnexus best used for?
DNAnexus is most often used for a clinical diagnostics laboratory that needs a clia and cap aligned environment for production sequencing pipelines without building the compliance evidence itself, a pharma sponsor analysing genomic endpoints in a registrational programme where 21 cfr part 11 records are required, a biobank or consortium giving hundreds of external researchers governed access to a dataset too large to distribute, a diagnostics vendor packaging its pipeline as a versioned app so partner laboratories can run it without receiving the source code. Of those, a clinical diagnostics laboratory that needs a clia and cap aligned environment for production sequencing pipelines without building the compliance evidence itself and a pharma sponsor analysing genomic endpoints in a registrational programme where 21 cfr part 11 records are required are not what Schrodinger is typically brought in for.
What can DNAnexus do that Schrodinger cannot?
DNAnexus covers Governed data storage, Workflow execution, App building, Controlled collaboration. Schrodinger covers Maestro, Glide, FEP+, Desmond.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

DNAnexus: Why pay for DNAnexus instead of raw AWS?

For the compliance evidence. GxP, FedRAMP, CLIA, CAP and Part 11 coverage removes a validation programme most organisations would otherwise have to build and maintain themselves.

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.

DNAnexus: Is validated use included?

No. Regulated and validated configurations sit in a separate commercial tier from ordinary research use.

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.

DNAnexus: Can I get my data out?

Yes, but egress at genomic scale is chargeable and slow, so plan exit costs at the point of signing.

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.

DNAnexus: Does it host UK Biobank?

Yes, DNAnexus hosts the UK Biobank research analysis platform, which has its own access approval and cost terms.

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 DNAnexus

More on Schrodinger

Keep looking

Other head to heads