Head to head

Science 37 vs Curavit

Two decentralized models at different scales.

Model

Science 37

Full-service DCT provider

Curavit

Full-service DCT provider

In one line

Science 37

Decentralized trial operating system with telemedicine investigators and nurses.

Curavit

Virtual CRO focused on digital therapeutics and decentralized designs.

What they do

Science 37

Provides the components of a decentralized or hybrid trial: patient-facing technology, telemedicine investigators, mobile nursing, and remote coordinators, so enrollment is not limited by proximity to a physical site.

Curavit

Operates as a digital-first CRO running virtual and hybrid studies, with particular focus on digital therapeutics and software-based interventions where the product itself is delivered remotely.

Pricing

Science 37

Platform plus services, priced per study and per component.

Curavit

CRO-style scoped budget with unit costs.

Strengths

Science 37

  • Removes geography as an enrollment constraint
  • Mature DCT technology stack
  • Can act as a virtual site alongside your existing network

Curavit

  • Positioned specifically for digital therapeutic and software-as-intervention trials
  • Lean operating model aimed at smaller sponsors

Watch for

Science 37

  • Not every protocol can be decentralized; assessment burden decides
  • Adds a regulatory and operational workstream sites are not used to

Curavit

  • Ask how many studies it has run in your therapeutic area and who would staff yours

Best for

Science 37

Protocols with remote-friendly assessments and a geographically dispersed population.

Curavit

Digital health and DTx sponsors running remote studies.

Poor fit

Science 37

Infusion or imaging-heavy protocols requiring frequent on-site procedures.

Curavit

Large multinational drug programs with complex safety monitoring.

When Science 37 is the right call

Pick Science 37 when you need decentralized infrastructure — telemedicine investigators, mobile nursing, connected devices — operating at multi-country, multi-hundred-patient scale.

When Curavit is the right call

Pick Curavit when the study is a smaller digital-therapeutic or software-as-intervention trial and you want a lean team rather than a platform contract.

How to actually decide

Decide on protocol assessments, not philosophy. List every visit and ask which can genuinely happen at home under your regulatory strategy. If most cannot, neither vendor's decentralized advantage applies and you are buying a conventional trial with extra software. Ask both who staffs your study by name, and how many trials they have run in your therapeutic area.

Do not pick on capability decks. Give both the same brief — your protocol, your countries, your screen failure assumptions — and ask each for the referral-to- randomization ratio they achieved on the three most similar studies they have run. Then price both on cost per randomized patient. The comparison usually resolves itself at that point, and often reveals that neither is the problem: the enrollment assumptions in the protocol were wrong from the start.

Our sister publication Rock Enroll covers that diagnosis in depth for sponsors and CRO teams.