Trial Competitive Landscape by Therapy
Where you and your competitors are fighting for the same patients.
A live trial-competitive-landscape view by therapy area — competing trials, site overlap, eligibility overlap and recruitment risk.
"Where will we compete for the same eligible patients — and how do we adapt?"
Site and eligibility overlap with competing trials is the most underestimated recruitment risk. A live competitive landscape is the only way to plan around it.
Trial competitive landscape is the most underused intelligence input to clinical operations. Site and eligibility overlap with competing trials directly drives recruitment risk and timeline slippage.
What we’re seeing in the data.
Site overlap drives recruitment risk
Three competing trials at one site usually means at least one will under-recruit.
Eligibility overlap defines real competition
Same TA + same line + similar inclusion criteria = head-to-head.
Sponsor capability shapes timing
Big pharma trial pace > biotech avg, especially for site activation.
How to think about it.
-
01
Pull competing trials
TA × line × biomarker × phase.
-
02
Map site overlap
Identify high-conflict sites.
-
03
Map eligibility overlap
Inclusion / exclusion comparison.
-
04
Score recruitment risk per site
Composite metric.
What separates a good answer from a defensible one.
Not all competitor trials are publicly listed.
Protocol amendments shift overlap.
Same CRO running competing trials.
Where the signal comes from.
Common questions.
How early should we map competing trials?
During protocol design — it shapes inclusion criteria and site selection.
Can we hide our trial?
Briefly. Most trials are visible by site activation. Plan accordingly.
Want this answered on your data?
We build decision systems on top of analyses like this — so the next question takes minutes, not weeks.
Talk to a strategist