Castor Review: Overview, Features, Pricing & Alternatives in 2025

Managing clinical data shouldn’t slow you down.

If you’re evaluating platforms like Castor, you’re probably frustrated with manual data entry, compliance worries, or slow study launches in the clinical research process.

Let’s be real—lost time and error-prone records keep causing delays that put your research and compliance at risk every day.

Castor tackles this by letting you quickly build compliant eCRFs, capture real-world and patient data, automate eConsent, and integrate sources—all in a user-friendly, audit-ready platform that’s proven to accelerate study deployment.

In this review, I’ll show you how Castor actually simplifies your research process and brings reliable data capture without the usual setup headaches.

You’ll find a detailed Castor review of core features, ease of use, workflows, pricing, and where it stands versus top clinical trial software alternatives, so you get the full evaluation you need.

I’ll help you cut through marketing noise and focus on the features you need to choose the right solution, confidently.

Let’s get started.

Castor Overview

Castor has been around since 2011, based in Amsterdam. Their core mission is to help medical researchers get more value from their clinical trial data.

What sets them apart is their specific focus on academic researchers and smaller commercial life sciences companies. You’ll find they target teams needing a truly user-friendly platform without the enterprise-level complexity.

That $45 million Series B funding in 2021 was a smart move, letting them strengthen their US presence. You can see its impact, which I’ll explore further through this Castor review.

Unlike complex systems like Medidata or technical open-source tools, Castor feels built around fast study builds and usability. This practical approach makes it accessible for research teams who don’t have dedicated IT support.

They work with thousands of academic institutions, clinical research organizations, and innovative med-tech companies. This includes supporting over 85,000 research users across a wide range of global clinical trials.

I found their current strategy is aimed at supporting decentralized and hybrid trials with an integrated toolset. Their focus on an all-in-one platform directly meets your need for more flexible, modern study models.

Now let’s examine their core capabilities.

Castor Features

Struggling with slow, error-prone clinical trial data collection?

Castor features are designed to streamline your entire clinical research process with user-friendly and compliant solutions. Here are the five main Castor features that transform how you manage your studies.

1. Electronic Data Capture (EDC)

Tired of lengthy, error-prone data entry?

Traditional paper-based data collection often leads to delays and inconsistencies. This can slow down your research and introduce costly errors.

Castor’s EDC system allows you to build custom eCRFs quickly, often deploying studies within weeks. From my testing, the intuitive interface simplifies data entry, flagging missing entries and creating a clear audit trail for accountability. This feature makes data collection efficient and accurate.

This means you can get real-time, clean data that accelerates your research timelines and improves overall data quality.

2. eConsent

Is remote patient consent a logistical nightmare?

Traditional in-person consent processes can limit participant access, especially in decentralized or hybrid trials. This creates significant enrollment hurdles.

The eConsent feature enables remote, video-enabled informed consent, making participation more convenient for patients. What I love about this approach is how it enhances accessibility for participants, allowing for wider and faster enrollment in your studies.

So you can optimize your study enrollment and easily reach a more diverse participant pool, no matter their location.

3. ePRO/eCOA (Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes/Clinical Outcome Assessments)

Having trouble collecting reliable patient-reported data?

Gathering subjective patient data can be inconsistent and difficult to integrate into your main study findings. This often leads to incomplete datasets.

Castor’s ePRO/eCOA module allows secure, patient-friendly surveys sent directly to participants, integrating seamlessly with your CRF data. This is where Castor shines: it ensures accurate and timely capture of crucial patient perspectives, which are vital for comprehensive outcomes.

This means you get rich, direct patient insights that enhance the depth and validity of your clinical outcome assessments.

4. Real-World Evidence (RWE) Platform

Need to gather comprehensive data from diverse real-world sources?

Collecting real-world evidence often involves fragmented data from various systems, making unified analysis challenging. This can hinder a holistic understanding of treatment impact.

Castor’s RWE platform supports collecting and integrating data from EHRs, eCRFs, ePRO, and wearables. Here’s what I found: its ability to unify disparate data sources provides a complete picture for your RWE studies, especially for digital therapeutics.

The result is your team gets robust, multi-faceted datasets that truly reflect real-world treatment effectiveness and patient experiences.

5. API Integration

Are your research systems struggling to communicate?

Manual data transfer between different clinical trial systems is a huge time sink. This often leads to errors and delays in your research workflow.

Castor offers an open API, allowing seamless integration with other software and databases in your ecosystem. From my testing, this feature simplifies complex data workflows, reducing manual entry and improving overall interoperability across your research tools.

This means you can achieve smoother data flow and greater efficiency, streamlining operations for even your most complex, multi-system studies.

You’ll actually appreciate how these Castor features work together to create a cohesive eClinical platform that truly accelerates your medical research.

Castor Pricing

Struggling to decode software pricing?

Castor pricing is primarily based on custom quotes, offering a flexible model but requiring direct sales contact for a precise cost breakdown tailored to your specific clinical trial needs.

1. Pricing Model & Cost Factors

Understanding Castor’s cost structure.

Castor’s pricing operates on a custom quote basis, particularly for studies exceeding 150 inclusions, lasting over 15 months, or involving multiple centers. Your final cost depends heavily on study scope, number of users, and selected modules like ePRO or eConsent. What I found regarding pricing is that while a standard per-user rate exists, larger needs push you toward tailored solutions.

From my cost analysis, this means your budget aligns directly with the complexity and scale of your research, not generic tiers.

2. Value Assessment & ROI

Is this an investment worth making?

Castor offers a user-friendly and compliant platform that significantly reduces manual data collection errors, saving your research team valuable time. From my cost analysis, the value lies in accelerated trial build times and robust data integrity, which translates to faster discoveries and regulatory compliance. What you pay for is a system that streamlines complex processes, ultimately improving research efficiency and data quality.

This means your budget gets a high return through operational efficiencies and reduced risk in critical clinical trials.

3. Budget Planning & Implementation

Consider all potential expenses.

Beyond the per-user license, anticipate significant upfront costs for implementation, ranging from $5,000 to over $50,000 depending on your organization’s size. Optional customization and training expenses also add to the total cost of ownership. First-year expenses include implementation fees, which ensure a smooth setup for your team.

So for your business, you can expect to allocate additional budget for initial setup to maximize Castor’s long-term value.

My Take: Castor’s pricing is flexible and scales with study needs, making it suitable for academic institutions and biotech companies needing compliant, user-friendly eClinical solutions, though larger enterprises will require a bespoke quote.

The overall Castor pricing reflects customized value for critical research data management.

Castor Reviews

What do actual users say?

This customer reviews section analyzes real user feedback and experiences, providing balanced insights to help you understand what actual customers think about Castor.

1. Overall User Satisfaction

Users are highly satisfied.

From my review analysis, Castor maintains a strong overall satisfaction rating of 4.6 out of 5 based on 126 reviews on G2. What I found in user feedback is how its intuitive design often leads to quick adoption, minimizing the learning curve for new teams.

This high satisfaction is largely driven by its ease of use and efficient study deployment.

2. Common Praise Points

Ease of use consistently delights.

Users frequently highlight Castor’s user-friendly interface, making data entry clear and navigation simple. Review-wise, the platform’s efficiency in study build time is also a major plus, with many praising its rapid deployment capabilities.

These features mean you can expect faster study setup and smoother daily operations.

3. Frequent Complaints

Login sessions can be frustrating.

What stands out in user feedback is the occasional complaint about short login session durations, requiring frequent re-logging. Another recurring point in Castor reviews is limitations regarding form-level data exports, which can be inconvenient for specific analyses.

These issues appear to be minor inconveniences rather than major deal-breakers for most users.

Overall, Castor reviews reflect strong user satisfaction with practical usability highlights, despite minor areas for improvement.

Best Castor Alternatives

Finding the right EDC solution feels overwhelming?

The best Castor alternatives include several strong options, each better suited for different business situations, budget considerations, and specific clinical trial needs.

1. REDCap

Is budget or open-source flexibility your priority?

REDCap excels if you have in-house technical expertise and a tight budget, as its open-source nature offers high customization and a vast support consortium. From my competitive analysis, REDCap provides secure data with open-source affordability, though it requires more self-management than Castor.

Choose REDCap when you prioritize cost savings and have the technical resources for self-implementation and customization.

2. Medidata Rave

Managing global, highly complex, large-scale trials?

Medidata Rave is an industry standard for very large, multi-phase global trials, especially in specialized areas like oncology, offering comprehensive features and robust data management. What I found comparing options is that Medidata Rave integrates extensively for complex ecosystems, fitting large enterprises over Castor’s nimble approach.

Consider this alternative when your trials are massive, global, and demand an all-encompassing, industry-standard solution.

3. OpenClinica

Seeking open-source with EHR integration focus?

OpenClinica shines when you need an open-source platform emphasizing flexibility, robust data management, and particularly EHR-to-EDC connectivity. From my analysis, OpenClinica offers deep customization and EHR integration, though its ease of use doesn’t match Castor’s intuitive design.

Choose OpenClinica if EHR connectivity and open-source customization are critical, provided you have the necessary technical expertise.

4. Medrio EDC

Prioritizing ultra-rapid database build times?

Medrio EDC is ideal if your top priority is quickly building databases without programming, emphasizing speed and simplicity through its fully hosted SaaS platform. Alternative-wise, Medrio enables rapid, code-free database creation, but Castor offers a broader integrated eClinical suite.

Select Medrio if your primary concern is fast study setup and study manager control, without needing Castor’s extensive feature breadth.

The best Castor alternatives selection depends on your budget, trial complexity, and technical capabilities more than just basic features.

Castor Setup

How complex is Castor implementation, really?

Castor implementation is largely straightforward due to its intuitive design, making it a relatively accessible deployment. This Castor review section sets realistic expectations for your setup.

1. Setup Complexity & Timeline

Expect a surprisingly quick deployment.

Castor is designed for rapid study deployment, with over 90% of studies reportedly deployed within four weeks. From my implementation analysis, the intuitive interface significantly reduces setup complexity, allowing researchers to build advanced eCRFs in minutes.

You’ll find the platform accessible even without extensive technical expertise, making your initial planning straightforward.

2. Technical Requirements & Integration

Minimal technical hurdles for your team.

Castor EDC is a cloud-based platform, meaning your technical requirements are low, as it’s accessible via web browsers. What I found about deployment is that it integrates well with existing systems through its open API, supporting EHR, ePRO/eCOA, and laboratory connections.

Plan for seamless web access and consider leveraging its robust API for streamlined data exchange with your current tools.

3. Training & Change Management

User adoption is remarkably smooth.

Minimal training is typically required for users to effectively utilize Castor’s capabilities due to its user-friendly interface. From my analysis, the low learning curve accelerates user proficiency, reducing the need for intensive training sessions or complex change management initiatives.

Your team will quickly adapt, benefiting from readily available help centers and FAQs for ongoing support.

4. Support & Success Factors

Strong support ensures a positive experience.

Castor offers various support channels, including phone, email, and live support, alongside a comprehensive knowledge base. From my analysis, their responsive support team is a critical success factor, with users consistently praising their helpfulness during implementation and beyond.

Plan to leverage their excellent support resources to navigate any specific study build needs or integration queries effectively.

The overall Castor setup emphasizes user-friendliness and rapid deployment, making it a strong choice for businesses seeking efficient clinical trial management.

Bottom Line

Is Castor the right choice for your research?

This Castor review will help you decide if its eClinical platform aligns with your needs, offering a decisive verdict on its strengths, limitations, and ideal user profiles.

1. Who This Works Best For

Medical researchers and clinical trial organizations.

Castor works exceptionally well for academic institutions, small to medium-sized biotech/pharma, medical device companies, and CROs focused on clinical trials and real-world evidence studies. From my user analysis, organizations prioritizing quick study setup and data quality will find this platform a perfect fit for their research objectives.

You’ll succeed if your primary goal is to streamline data collection, ensure compliance, and manage decentralized trials efficiently.

2. Overall Strengths

Intuitive interface drives rapid study deployment.

The software excels with its user-friendly interface, enabling rapid eCRF creation and efficient data collection, significantly reducing study build times. From my comprehensive analysis, its integrated eConsent, ePRO, and EDC solutions are vital for modern decentralized and hybrid trial designs, providing a seamless experience.

These strengths translate directly into accelerated research, improved data accuracy, and greater confidence in regulatory compliance for your studies.

3. Key Limitations

Pricing transparency is a notable concern.

While powerful, detailed pricing information is not publicly available, requiring direct contact with sales, which can complicate initial budget planning for your organization. Based on this review, short login session durations can be an inconvenience for clinicians working in parallel, interrupting their workflow and requiring frequent re-logging.

I’d say these limitations are manageable trade-offs for the comprehensive features, but you must factor in the sales process for pricing.

4. Final Recommendation

Castor earns a strong recommendation for clinical research.

You should choose Castor if you need a compliant, scalable, and easy-to-use eClinical platform for clinical trials and real-world evidence studies. From my analysis, its robust features and user experience make it ideal for streamlining data management and accelerating your research workflows.

My confidence level is high for organizations seeking an integrated, compliant, and user-friendly solution for clinical research.

This Castor review highlights its strengths for clinical research while providing clear guidance on its ideal user profile and areas to consider before committing.