Antidote

Operates a trial-matching layer embedded across health nonprofits, patient advocacy organizations, and health publishers. Patients encounter the matcher in a context they already trust rather than through a cold ad.

Generally program-based pricing tied to the partner network and indication. Request the split between partner-sourced and paid-media-sourced referrals.

Whatever the structure, convert it to cost per randomized patient before you compare proposals. Cost per referral is the number vendors prefer to quote and the number that tells you least.

• Advocacy and publisher partnerships put the matcher in front of engaged patients
• Publicly focused on conditions with an organized patient community
• Positions itself on referral quality rather than raw volume

• Ask which advocacy and publisher partners are live in your indication and your countries — reach follows the network
• Ask how quickly volume can be scaled if you fall behind plan, and what the paid-media fallback looks like

Worth it when: Chronic and rare conditions with active advocacy groups, where credibility matters more than raw volume.

Not worth it when: Studies needing very large volume in a short window in a common indication.

• AutoCruitmentDirect-to-patient digital recruitment with a proprietary pre-screener.
• Clara HealthPatient-experience-led recruitment with concierge-style support.
• TrialbeePatient matching and orchestration across multiple referral sources.

• AutoCruitment vs Antidote — Paid-media volume versus advocacy-sourced quality.

Ask for the referral-to-randomization ratio on three studies resembling yours, in the same indication and the same countries. If a vendor will not give it, that is the answer. If your enrollment forecast itself is the shaky part, our sister publication Rock Enroll covers forecasting and rescue in depth.