G-Flow vs. Castor EDC
Circumvent multi-tenant cloud hosting vulnerabilities and InfoSec audits with on-premise local compiler execution.
InfoSec Bottlenecks & Multi-Tenant Cloud
Castor EDC relies on SaaS cloud environments. For biotech companies, sending pre-publication protocol documents and design structures to external cloud environments triggers extensive InfoSec audits, legal clearances, and vendor security review pipelines that delay startup by 6 to 12 months.
G-Flow runs 100% locally. Deployed as a secure dockerized container on local node appliances (e.g. Dell Pro Max GB10) behind your corporate firewall, clinical protocol IP never leaves your iron. This completely bypasses multi-tenant cloud vulnerability concerns and SaaS InfoSec audits.
Manual Schema Setup Constraints
Castor EDC requires manual setup of CRF variables and study fields. This remains subject to human errors and database revisions.
G-Flow automates this setup. It compiles study schemas directly into CDASH v1.3 formats and checks validations automatically, returning verified trial structures in under 24 hours.
Comparison Summary
- Data Sovereignty: Castor EDC relies on SaaS multi-tenant cloud hosting; G-Flow runs 100% locally behind your firewall.
- Security Audits: Castor EDC requires cloud vendor compliance reviews; G-Flow has zero external data transmission.
- Database Setup: Castor EDC uses manual form building; G-Flow compiles databases automatically from protocol text.