Softwr

Research · head to head

Castor EDC vs TetraScience

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
TetraScience logo

TetraScience

Research

Scientific data cloud that harmonises instrument output across the lab estate

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.; TetraScience pricing is scoped on connected instruments and data engineering effort rather than a published unit, so the cost of adding a new laboratory or an acquired site is impossible to forecast without going back to the vendor.
  • They diverge on capability: Castor EDC covers Browser-based study build, TetraScience covers Instrument connectors.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

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

Attributes where Castor EDC and TetraScience differ
AttributeCastor EDCTetraScience
PlatformsWeb, iOS, AndroidWeb, Cloud, API

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 TetraScience

  • Instrument connectors
  • Tetra Data harmonisation
  • Cloud-native data platform
  • GxP package
  • Scientific applications
  • Data provenance
  • Open access
  • AWS Marketplace availability

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

TetraScience

  • A pharmaceutical company trying to make twenty years of chromatography data usable for modelling rather than trapped on instrument workstationsnot Castor EDC
  • A biotech building machine learning models on assay data that currently requires manual export from every instrumentnot Castor EDC
  • A quality control laboratory needing instrument data captured with provenance and audit trail for regulated usenot Castor EDC
  • A company consolidating data from acquired sites where each site runs a different instrument vendor and informatics stacknot 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.

TetraScience

  • Pricing is scoped on connected instruments and data engineering effort rather than a published unit, so the cost of adding a new laboratory or an acquired site is impossible to forecast without going back to the vendor.
  • Value depends entirely on connector coverage for your actual instrument estate; an instrument type without an existing productised connector becomes a services engagement with its own timeline and cost.
  • The GxP package is a separate annual subscription rather than an included capability, so a company that starts in research and later needs regulated use faces an additional commercial line and a validation exercise.
  • It is infrastructure with no end-user application of its own, so the business case rests on downstream analytics and AI work that has to be resourced and delivered separately before anyone sees a benefit.
  • Deployment is a multi-year programme touching instruments, networks, validated systems and site IT, and organisations consistently underestimate the internal effort required from people who also have day jobs running the laboratory.

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

TetraScience

On request
  • Tetra Scientific Data Cloud$undefined/year
    • Priced on number of instruments connected and scope of data engineering
    • Contract entitles a specified quantity of use for its duration
    • Multi-year enterprise agreements are the norm
  • Tetra GxP package$undefined/year
    • Separate annual subscription executed within the licence agreement
    • Audit trail, data provenance, control matrices and software hazard analysis
    • Disaster recovery provisions

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 TetraScience if

  • You need instrument connectors.
  • You work on Web, Cloud, API.
  • You also want tetra data harmonisation.
TetraScience review

Questions people ask

Is Castor EDC or TetraScience better?
Neither clearly leads. Castor EDC starts at On request and TetraScience at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Castor EDC or TetraScience?
Castor EDC starts at On request and TetraScience at On request.
Does Castor EDC or TetraScience run on more platforms?
Castor EDC runs on Web, iOS, Android. TetraScience runs on Web, Cloud, API.
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 TetraScience is typically brought in for.
What can Castor EDC do that TetraScience cannot?
Castor EDC covers Browser-based study build, 21 CFR Part 11 workflows, eConsent, ePRO and surveys. TetraScience covers Instrument connectors, Tetra Data harmonisation, Cloud-native data platform, GxP package.

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.

TetraScience: What is the pricing unit?

Connected instruments and the scope of data engineering, over a fixed contract term. There is no published per-seat or per-gigabyte rate.

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.

TetraScience: Does it replace my ELN or LIMS?

No. It sits underneath them, harmonising instrument data and making it available to whatever applications you already run.

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.

TetraScience: Is it usable in a GxP environment?

Yes, with the separately subscribed Tetra GxP package. It reduces validation effort substantially but does not eliminate your validation obligation.

Castor EDC: How long does a quote take?

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

TetraScience: Can I get the harmonised data out?

Yes. Tetra Data is designed to be accessible to your own analytics tools rather than confined to the platform.

Share

Related pages

More on Castor EDC

More on TetraScience

Keep looking

Other head to heads