Access is a capable desktop database, and many registries and pilot studies start in one. When the study needs a field-level audit trail, e-signatures, role-based access and several sites entering data, Capture provides them without setup fees.
Free sandbox · No credit card · 21 CFR Part 11 aligned
Tests
5
Hands-on
4
To confirm
1
Capture vs Access: the short version
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 wedge
Teams rarely choose Access for a study on purpose. A clinician or statistician builds a tidy database for a registry, it works, and a second site, a second coordinator and a sponsor or ethics committee arrive. The questions that follow are not about tables: who entered this value, who changed it and why, who could see participant names, how is a correction requested and closed, and how do you show the data analysed are the data that were collected.
A purpose-built EDC answers them by design. Capture records every change at field level with user, time, old value, new value and reason, keeps the audit trail exportable and does not let it be edited from the interface. Names and clinical values are separated by role, so coordinators see names while researchers see coded IDs. Part 11 compliance remains a shared responsibility between the software and the sponsor's own validated use of it, whichever system you pick; see 21 CFR Part 11 compliant EDC for the controls and the audit trail software page for what a trail should record.
The key-person risk matters as much as compliance. If the macros and VBA are understood by one person and that person leaves, the study runs on a system nobody can safely change. An EDC with a visual builder, draft and approved form states and recorded amendments does not depend on one person's memory.
The thinking carries over. Your tables map naturally to forms, one-to-many relationships become repeating rows or visits, lookup tables become choice lists and saved queries become exports. Macros and VBA do not carry over; each one needs a plain replacement such as a skip logic rule, an edit check, a built-in calculator or an export. The full eight-step method is in how to replace a Microsoft Access study database. If your data are currently in a spreadsheet instead, see Capture vs Excel; for a spreadsheet-database hybrid, see Capture vs Airtable.
What to compare
| Criterion | Why it matters | Capture |
|---|---|---|
| Audit trail | Who changed what, when and why | Field-level, append-only, with user, time, old and new value and reason |
| Access control | Minimum necessary access by role | Role-based access; site coordinators see names, researchers see coded IDs; site-level separation |
| Multi-site entry | Several people entering at once without a shared file | Browser-based entry; site-level participant numbering, for example 001-0042; QR enrollment with no app install |
| Data checks | Clean data at entry | Range and custom-value edit checks raise auto-queries |
| Signatures | Consent and investigator sign-off | Verified eConsent; re-authenticated investigator signatures |
| Locked structure | Forms that do not change mid-study unnoticed | Draft and approved forms; approved forms locked for live use |
| Queries | Correction requests with a recorded resolution | Auto-queries from edit checks; query history in the audit trail |
| Maintenance | No dependence on one person's macros | Visual builder with AI drafting; amendments are recorded, not coded |
| Offline entry | Working without a connection | Not available today; Capture is browser-based, so plan connectivity or a documented paper fallback |
| Cost | Budget for small studies | Free sandbox; no setup fee; pay only when you go live |
This table shows Capture's answers only. Ask Access for theirs, and confirm current capabilities and terms directly with them.
Compliance controls
Every change is written to an append-only, hash-chained audit trail with user, time, old and new value and reason. Electronic signatures require password re-authentication and carry a meaning statement. Roles separate sites, and identifying data is segregated from study data at the database layer.
Weight changed 68.0 to 68.5 kg
Site coordinator · Reason: Transcription error
Query Q-0014 answered on Weight
Site coordinator · Reason: Source checked
Vital signs form locked
Data manager · Reason: Visit cleaned
Longitudinal studies
Each visit is anchored to screening, a milestone, an earlier visit, a fixed study day or a date recorded on a form, with a window and an enforcement mode. Questionnaires follow the schedule, reminders go out by email or SMS, and the status overview shows every participant against every visit.
Window -3 / +3 days around the anchored target date
Soft window
Stays available with a protocol deviation flag
Hard window
Locks outside the window
Warning only
Stays available with a warning
Auto-close
Marked missed when the window closes
Describe it or upload it, and let the AI draft the questions in the free sandbox.
Fit
Access is often fine for a single-user registry, a short pilot, a supply or contact tracker, or a local analysis database that sits downstream of a controlled system. It is also a reasonable place to prototype table structure before designing forms.
Capture fits the moment the data will be relied on by someone else: several coordinators or sites, an ethics board, a sponsor, a journal or a regulator. It is the stronger choice when the study needs an audit trail with reasons, signatures and role-based access rather than procedures wrapped around a file.
Identity and access
Site coordinators see participant names; researchers and sponsor-side users work with coded IDs. Identifying data is segregated at the database layer, sites see only their own participants, and data is encrypted with AES-256 at rest and TLS in transit, hosted in the EU or US.
Site coordinator
Jane Peterson
DOB: 04-Mar-1978
Subject 01-004
Sees direct identifiersResearcher
Subject 01-004
DOB: withheld
Coded ID only
Sees coded ID onlySame record, two roles. Row-level security enforces the split.
Switching
Document every table, form, query and macro, then freeze and archive the final .accdb as a read-only record with its date and owner. Export the tables to CSV or XLSX and upload the field list or data dictionary; Capture's AI drafts the eCRFs for your review, and nothing is saved until you approve it.
Add types, ranges, required fields, edit checks and a visit schedule, and replace each macro with a skip logic rule, an edit check or a calculator. Keep the archived file as the legacy record, merge it at analysis with a variable map, and note the cut-over date in the data management plan. Capture does not import an Access file directly.
Test the full flow in the free sandbox first: entry, a failed edit check, a query, an e-signature and the audit trail export. You pay only when you go live with real participants.
Evaluation
Agreements, access control and hosting checked.
Schedules, windows and reminders needed.
Audit trail with reasons required.
Consent or investigator sign-off needed.
Site separation and roles needed.
Part 11 or GCP expectations apply.
All comparisons
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.
It can store the data, and small registries do use it. For trial data, check whether you have a field-level audit trail with reasons, controlled access, edit checks, query handling and signatures, and whether the file is safe for several users. A clinical study platform provides these natively.
Part 11 compliance depends on the whole system and on how the sponsor validates and uses it. A stand-alone Access database lacks several controls Part 11 describes, such as signatures with meaning statements and an attributable audit trail with reasons, unless someone builds them. Capture provides these controls; compliance remains a shared responsibility.
Export your tables to CSV or XLSX and upload the field list, or describe the form, and the AI drafts the eCRFs for review. Rebuild macros as skip logic, edit checks or calculators, test in the free sandbox, and archive the .accdb with a documented cut-over date.
No. There is no direct import of an Access file. Historical data stays in its original export and is merged with the Capture export at analysis.
They are not carried over. Each one is replaced by a skip logic rule, an edit check, a built-in clinical calculator or an export, and you can use the sandbox to confirm the behaviour matches.
Yes. Capture is browser-based, with roles and site-level participant numbering, so several sites can enter data without sharing one file.
The sandbox is free with every feature and no credit card. There is no setup fee, and you pay only once you go live with real participants.
Yes. The free sandbox includes every feature with sample data, no credit card and no time limit. You pay only when you go live.
From public positioning and the criteria teams tell us matter. We state only Capture's own capabilities as fact; confirm Access's current offering with them.
Keep exploring
Replace a Microsoft Access study database
The eight-step migration guide.
Capture vs Excel
Spreadsheets as a study database.
Capture vs Airtable
Spreadsheet-database hybrids.
Audit trail software for clinical trials
What a proper audit trail records.
Capture vs Qualtrics
Survey and experience platform.
Capture vs SurveyMonkey
Online survey tool.
Build a study in minutes. Free sandbox.