Capture vs Clinical ink: planning source data and participant data together
Clinical ink is known for eSource and eCOA. Capture lets sites enter data directly during visits, participants answer on their own phones, and monitors verify only what matters, in one study.
- Free sandbox, no sales call
- EDC, ePRO, eConsent, randomization
- Part 11-aligned controls
Free sandbox · No credit card · 21 CFR Part 11 aligned
Tests
5
Hands-on
4
To confirm
1
- Consent a test participant remotelySame test, both systems
- Complete a diary on your own phoneSame test, both systems
- Miss an entry and watch the remindersSame test, both systems
- See participant data next to site dataSame test, both systems
- Compare total cost for your studyAsk both vendors
Capture vs Clinical ink: the short version
- Clinical ink provides eSource, eCOA and related technology for capturing trial data at sites and from patients.
- eSource means the electronic record is the source for some data points, which changes what monitors verify.
- Capture supports direct entry at the visit, with SDV set per field so verification focuses on critical data.
- Participant questionnaires and consent sit in the same study as site data.
- Write down the source for each data point, whichever system you use.
0
sales calls needed to start building
1
audit trail across EDC, ePRO, eConsent and randomization
Free
sandbox with every feature, no time limit
EU + US
hosting in Frankfurt or N. Virginia
The comparison
Direct data entry and monitoring
When sites enter data directly into the electronic system during the visit, that entry can be the source record for those data points, removing transcription from paper. FDA has published guidance on electronic source data in clinical investigations. The monitoring plan then focuses on data that still comes from other sources, such as medical records and lab reports.
In Capture, SDV is set per field, so monitors verify what the risk assessment says matters. Queries raised at entry catch errors immediately, and the audit trail shows who entered what, when. See risk-based monitoring and SDV software.
What to compare
What to test when comparing Capture and Clinical ink
| Criterion | Why it matters | Capture |
|---|---|---|
| Direct entry | Less transcription | Sites enter visit data directly on locked, approved forms |
| Verification | Focused monitoring | SDV set per field; site risk monitor with reasons |
| Link to site data | Reconciliation effort | ePRO, eConsent and EDC in one study and one audit trail |
| Device model | Cost and participant friction | BYOD in the browser with no app; clinic devices supported |
| eConsent | Evidence of consent | Email OTP, investigator countersignature, witness and LAR signatures, signed PDF |
| Commercial model | Fit for your study size | Free sandbox; no setup fee; pay only when you go live |
This table shows Capture's answers only. Ask Clinical ink for theirs, and confirm current capabilities and terms directly with them.
Participant data
ePRO on participants' own phones, in the same audit trail
Participants open a secure link with no app to install. Diaries and questionnaires follow the schedule with completion windows, and reminders go out when a task is due, the next day and before the window closes, respecting quiet hours in each participant's time zone. Compliance is visible by study, country and site.
- BYOD in the browser, no app store.
- Licence tracking for licensed instruments.
- At-risk participants flagged.
At-risk participants
eConsent
Consent with evidence you can hand to an inspector
Participants sign on screen after confirming a one-time email code and acknowledging that the signature is legally binding. The investigator countersigns with password re-authentication. Witness and legally authorised representative signatures are supported, and each signature is linked to the exact document content.
- Remote or in-clinic signing.
- Signed PDF with audit trail.
- Consent in the same study as the data.
Meaning of signature
I have reviewed this adverse event and confirm the assessment of seriousness, severity and causality.
Signer
Dr. A. Ozola, PI
Password
••••••••••
Walk through the participant journey
Consent and complete a diary on your own phone in the free sandbox.
Fit
When Clinical ink fits, and when Capture does
Clinical ink is often a good fit for sponsors with established eSource programmes and processes built around its tools.
Capture fits studies that want site data, participant data and consent in one self-serve system, with monitoring focused per field.
One platform
EDC, ePRO, eConsent and randomization in one study
Sites enter data on locked, approved forms with edit checks that raise queries at entry. Participants complete questionnaires on their own phones and sign eConsent with verified signatures. Randomization and kit management run in the same study, and everything shares one field-level audit trail.
- One participant record across every module.
- No integrations to build or reconcile.
- Phase 1 through Phase 3.
Switching
Moving from Clinical ink to Capture
Agree the source data plan with sites before switching: which data points are entered directly and which are transcribed. Then build forms in Capture with AI drafting from the protocol.
Switch at study boundaries rather than mid-study, especially for licensed instruments, whose electronic versions usually need the licence holder's approval in each new system.
Evaluation
How to evaluate patient-facing technology
Participant journey
Consent, onboarding and first questionnaire on a phone.
Device model
BYOD, provisioned devices or both.
Compliance tools
Windows, reminders and at-risk alerts.
Licensed instruments
Who migrates them and how licences are tracked.
Link to EDC
One audit trail or an integration.
Total cost
Build, per-participant and device costs.
All comparisons
Compare Capture with other platforms
Every comparison uses the same approach: what to test, where each option fits, and Capture's own answers. See all of them on the comparisons hub at /compare.
Can the EDC be the source record?
For data entered directly during the visit, it can. Document the source for each data point.
Is Capture a Clinical ink alternative?
Yes, for studies that want site data, ePRO and eConsent in one self-serve system.
Can SDV be targeted?
Yes. SDV is set per field.
Can I test Capture before deciding against Clinical ink?
Yes. The free sandbox includes every feature with sample data, no credit card and no time limit. You pay only when you go live.
How did you build this comparison?
From public positioning and the criteria teams tell us matter. We state only Capture's own capabilities as fact; confirm Clinical ink's current offering with them.
Keep exploring
Related pages
Participant data in the same study as everything else
Free sandbox with every feature.