Lindus Health

Sells the full study as one package — recruitment, site services, and its own eClinical software — pitched against traditional CROs on cost transparency and speed, often with fixed-price or outcome-linked contracting.

Fixed-price study contracts; unusually explicit about this compared with peers.

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.

• One accountable party for enrollment instead of a CRO/vendor blame loop
• Fixed pricing removes change-order exposure
• Own technology stack reduces integration lag

• Younger organization than incumbent CROs; check therapeutic-area references
• Bundling means switching one component later is harder

Worth it when: Small and mid-size biotechs who want a single throat to choke on timelines.

Not worth it when: Sponsors already locked into a preferred-CRO relationship.

• TrialSparkTechnology-led trial execution; strategy has shifted toward drug development.
• CuravitVirtual CRO focused on digital therapeutics and decentralized designs.
• Science 37Decentralized trial operating system with telemedicine investigators and nurses.

• Lindus Health vs TrialSpark — Bundled fixed-price CRO versus technology-led execution.

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.