How 16 Electronic Lab Notebooks Compare in 2026
A method and an interactive tool for comparing electronic lab notebooks: seven criteria, a written scoring guide, and weights and ratings you can change. We applied it to sixteen products as a worked example — change what your lab cares about and the results update in front of you.
Pricing in this market changes constantly and is usually quote-only — treat every figure as a starting point.
How to read this
This is not an absolute ranking. It is a set of criteria, a method and a tool for evaluating electronic lab notebooks, applied here to sixteen of them, so you can repeat the exercise with your own priorities.
TeselaGen publishes this comparison and is one of the sixteen products in it. Under our own weights it ranks joint first, with Benchling. The method is open so you can check that:
- Change the weights, change the ranking. The weighting is an editorial judgement and the first thing worth disagreeing with. Every table here is computed from one set of ratings by one scoring function, so the sliders below give you the version that matches your lab.
- If GxP validation comes first. If validated GxP compliance is your first requirement, know that we carry no published GxP validation package, which is why we rate ourselves 6/10 on compliance. If GxP validation is what you care about, please contact us.
How to use this tool
- 1 Set the weights. In “Score it your way”, pick a buyer profile or move the sliders to match what your lab buys on.
- 2 Change the ratings you disagree with. Click any rating in the scorecard, using the scoring guide in “How we scored”. Scores and the ranking then use your ratings and your weights together.
- 3 Pilot your shortlist. The ratings come from public information. Run a pilot with your own data before you decide.
Worked example
Sixteen notebooks, scored with our weights
This ranking uses TeselaGen's own ratings and weights. You are free to use yours: change the weights with the sliders below, or click any rating in the scorecard further down to change it. Scores are rounded to one decimal place, and notebooks with the same score share a rank.
| # | Vendor & product | Best for | Pricing | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TeselaGenTeselaGen ELN (Notebook toolkit) | AI-native biological design platform | Community (free); Starter $150 per user per month, including the ELN; Enterprise and Catalyst by quote | 8.5 |
| 1 | BenchlingBenchling Notebook | Biotech R&D cloud | Free for academics; commercial by quote | 8.5 |
| 3 | ScispotScispot ELN (Labspaces) | Cloud-native lab operating system | By quote | 8.2 |
| 4 | Sapio SciencesSapio ELaiN | AI-native LIMS + ELN | Free Bronze edition for academics; Silver, Gold and Platinum on request | 8.0 |
| 5 | Revvity SignalsSignals Notebook | Chemistry-first enterprise ELN | $1,425 / user / year (Signals Notebook Standard list price) | 7.3 |
| 6 | DotmaticsDotmatics ELN | Enterprise scientific informatics | By quote | 7.2 |
| 7 | IDBSE-WorkBook / Polar | Biopharma enterprise ELN/LES/LIMS | By quote | 7.1 |
| 8 | SciNoteSciNote ELN | Open-core ELN + inventory | Free tier for individual users; paid and regulated plans priced on request | 7.0 |
| 9 | CenevoLabguru ELN | Mid-market ELN + LIMS + sample ops | Official pricing by quote | 6.9 |
| 10 | SciSureSciSure ELN (formerly eLabJournal) + Labfolder | Scientific management platform (ELN + LIMS + EHS) | By quote | 6.7 |
| 11 | RSpaceRSpace ELN | Open-source research data management hub | Published minimum annual subscriptions from $6,000 (academic team), $12,000 (commercial team) and $34,000 (enterprise); free self-hosted open-source edition | 6.6 |
| 12 | LabWareLabWare ELN | GMP/QC LIMS + ELN | By quote | 6.5 |
| 13 | eLabFTWeLabFTW | Free open-source ELN | Free under AGPL-3.0 (self-hosted); hosting available | 6.4 |
| 14 | LabArchivesLabArchives ELN | Academic / institutional ELN | $330 / user / year academic, $575 / user / year corporate (Professional); free edition | 6.3 |
| 15 | LabiiLabii ELN & LIMS | Configurable ELN + LIMS | Free, Professional and Enterprise plans plus pay-per-use; prices on request | 6.1 |
| 16 | Collaborative Drug DiscoveryCDD Vault ELN | Drug discovery data + ELN | By quote; trial arranged with sales; free access for academic neglected-disease research in Africa, by application | 5.7 |
Score it your way
Set each criterion from 1 (barely matters) to 10 (decisive) to match what your lab actually buys on. The ranking recalculates from the same ratings.
How much each criterion matters
Ranking under these weights
- 1TeselaGen8.5
- 1Benchling8.5
- 3Scispot8.2
- 4Sapio Sciences8.0
- 5Revvity Signals7.3
- 6Dotmatics7.2
- 7IDBS7.1
- 8SciNote7.0
- 9Cenevo6.9
- 10SciSure6.7
- 11RSpace6.6
- 12LabWare6.5
- 13eLabFTW6.4
- 14LabArchives6.3
- 15Labii6.1
- 16Collaborative Drug Discovery5.7
Context
What changed in the last 10 years
A widely-cited public ELN comparison was published almost a decade ago. Two things happened in the nine years since, and both should change how you buy.
1. The category consolidated
Roughly half the independent vendors on the 2017 list no longer exist as independent vendors:
| Then | Now |
|---|---|
| Dotmatics | Acquired by Siemens for $5.1B, closed July 2025 |
| LabArchives | Owned by Dotmatics, and therefore by Siemens |
| IDBS E-WorkBook | Owned by Danaher |
| PerkinElmer E-Notebook | Moved to Revvity Signals, where Signals Notebook is its cloud successor |
| eLabNext / eLabJournal | Merged with SciShield to form SciSure, January 2025 |
| Labfolder | Acquired by SciSure from Labforward, September 2025 |
| Labguru | Merged with Titian Software, rebranded Cenevo, July 2025 |
| Riffyn | Software and IP acquired by Siemens in 2022, now Riffyn X |
| Hivebench, Arxspan, Core ELN, genohm | Acquired by Elsevier, Bruker, Thermo Fisher and Agilent respectively |
The practical consequence: you are increasingly buying a module of an industrial software portfolio, not a lab notebook. Ask who owns the roadmap, ask what happens to the product you are buying when it overlaps with a sibling product — one owner now holds two of the notebooks in this table — and get your exit terms in writing before you sign.
Three questions worth asking in the room, before price comes up:
- Who owns this product's roadmap, and what happens to it when it overlaps with a sibling product in the same portfolio?
- What does our exit look like, concretely — which formats, which API, how long, at what cost? Get it in writing.
- If this vendor is acquired during our contract term, what changes and what does not?
None of those are hostile questions. A vendor with a good answer will be glad you asked.
The flip side is worth naming too, and it cuts both ways. Only a handful of vendors still build an ELN and a LIMS as an independent company — TeselaGen, Benchling, Sapio, Scispot, SciNote and LabWare among them. A Siemens or Danaher balance sheet buys validation teams, round-the-clock support and a procurement process your own procurement department already recognises. What independence should buy you is the other thing: a shorter path from “we need this” to someone building it, and an answer from the people who wrote the code rather than a tier-one queue. Neither is a given — test the response time you actually get during the evaluation instead of taking either side's word for it.
2. The notebook stopped being a filing cabinet
In 2017 the interesting questions were “does it have inventory?” and “does it do version control?” Every serious product answers yes to both now. The 2026 question is different:
Can an AI agent read and write your real lab records, under your own permissions, with an audit trail — and can you point the agent you already use at it?
That is not hypothetical. In the last eighteen months Sapio launched an agentic notebook it calls a third-generation ELN, Benchling shipped AI Connectors built on the Model Context Protocol, Scispot announced an MCP server for its lab platform (in private beta, according to its documentation), and TeselaGen put its MCP server in front of its sequence, design and ELN APIs.
Four vendors out of sixteen. As far as their public documentation showed in September 2026, the other twelve have AI features of some kind — summarisation, search, drafting — but nothing an external agent can drive.
3. Why the agentic criterion carries the most weight
The criterion also says something about the platform underneath. To expose a notebook to an external agent, a vendor needs complete API coverage — not just the endpoints that were convenient — with real per-user permissions, an audit trail that captures what the agent did, and a schema stable enough to describe to a machine. That is the same API a lab wants anyway for its pipelines, dashboards and any eventual migration.
That is why the agentic criterion carries the heaviest published weight. It is a judgement call, and it happens to favour the company publishing it — so if you weigh it differently, the sliders above are how you say so.
Method
How we scored
Seven criteria. Each carries a weight from 1 (barely matters) to 10 (decisive), and each vendor is rated 1-10 against it. The score is the weighted average, so it lands on the same 1-10 scale as the ratings behind it.
Each criterion spells out what a 4, a 7 and a 10 look like. Ratings in between are judgement calls.
| Criterion | Weight | What the criterion measures, and what a 4, 7 and 10 look like |
|---|---|---|
| Agentic AI & open AI interoperability | 9 | Can an AI agent read and write real lab records under the user's own permissions — and can you point it at the model and client you choose, over an open protocol (MCP), rather than only the vendor's built-in chat?
|
| Unified ELN + LIMS + inventory (DBTL coverage) | 7 | Does one system carry an experiment from plan to sample to result, or do you buy and integrate two or three?
|
| API & interoperability | 6 | Can you get every record out and put every record in programmatically — and can you read the API spec before you sign anything?
|
| Compliance & data integrity | 7 | Electronic signatures, immutable locked records, complete version history, audit trail, and the certifications a regulated or enterprise buyer will ask for.
|
| Collaboration & authoring experience | 5 | Real-time multi-author editing, templates, structured blocks (tables, spreadsheets, sequences) and version restore — how much friction sits between the bench and the record?
|
| Openness & exit rights | 5 | How easily you can get everything out and move on — open export formats, API coverage, and self-hosting where it is offered. Lock-in is a cost even when it is not on the invoice.
|
| Pricing transparency & entry cost | 3 | Can a lab find out what this costs and start using it without a sales cycle?
|
The scorecard
Our ratings for all sixteen notebooks. These scores are subjective: our judgement, formed from public information as of September 28, 2026. Feel free to use your own.
Click any rating to change it. Scores use the weights set in “Score it your way” above, and that ranking updates too.
| Vendor | Agentic AI9 | ELN+LIMS7 | API6 | Compliance7 | Collaboration5 | Openness5 | Pricing3 | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TeselaGen | 8.5 | |||||||
| Benchling | 8.5 | |||||||
| Scispot | 8.2 | |||||||
| Sapio Sciences | 8.0 | |||||||
| Revvity Signals | 7.3 | |||||||
| Dotmatics | 7.2 | |||||||
| IDBS | 7.1 | |||||||
| SciNote | 7.0 | |||||||
| Cenevo | 6.9 | |||||||
| SciSure | 6.7 | |||||||
| RSpace | 6.6 | |||||||
| LabWare | 6.5 | |||||||
| eLabFTW | 6.4 | |||||||
| LabArchives | 6.3 | |||||||
| Labii | 6.1 | |||||||
| Collaborative Drug Discovery | 5.7 |
Our own ratings, explained
The reasoning behind each of TeselaGen's seven ratings, and where you can check it.
| Criterion | Rating | Why | Check it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic AI & open AI interoperability | 10 | An MCP server and an in-app agent: Claude, Cursor or any MCP-capable client can read and write live sequences, designs and notebook entries under the signed-in user's own permissions. | MCP server docs |
| Unified ELN + LIMS + inventory (DBTL coverage) | 10 | Notebook, registry, inventory, workflows and instrument worklists (Echo, Tecan, Hamilton, Biomek) share one data model, so an experiment runs from plan to sample to result in one system. | Registry & inventoryLab automation |
| API & interoperability | 9 | A public OpenAPI reference, readable without an account, covering the platform including reading and writing notebook content. Rated 9, level with the other strong APIs here rather than at the top of the scale. | API reference |
| Compliance & data integrity | 6 | Electronic signatures with configurable meanings (author, reviewer, approver), sign-and-lock and full version history support 21 CFR Part 11 workflows, and anyone can check a signed entry against its signature at verify.teselagen.com. We carry no published GxP validation package, so validation is the customer's project, which is why this is a 6. | NotebookSignature verifier |
| Collaboration & authoring experience | 10 | Real-time multi-author editing with live cursors, sequences, data tables and spreadsheets embedded as live blocks in an entry, and version restore. | Notebook |
| Openness & exit rights | 6 | Entries export to open formats and the API covers the whole platform, so your data can leave with you. The platform is not self-hostable, which keeps it below the open-source options. | API reference |
| Pricing transparency & entry cost | 7 | A permanent free Community Edition anyone can start on without talking to us, and a published price for Starter ($150 per user per month), which includes the ELN. Enterprise and Catalyst are priced by quote. | PricingCommunity Edition |
Sensitivity
Does the ranking survive a different weighting?
The same ratings, re-ranked under five other buyer profiles.
| Weighting | What it assumes | Top three | TeselaGen |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published weighting | The weighting used for the headline ranking. | 1. TeselaGen · 2. Benchling · 3. Scispot | #1 |
| Biologics team heading to the clinic | Biologics discovery moving toward IND: validated compliance and a unified platform matter most; budget and exit rights matter less. | 1. Benchling · 2. TeselaGen · 3. Sapio Sciences | #2 |
| Cost & data sovereignty | Openness, exit rights and price first; lock-in treated as the main risk. | 1. eLabFTW · 2. RSpace · 3. TeselaGen | #3 |
| Academic / core facility | Mixed-discipline users, institutional procurement, tight budget. | 1. TeselaGen · 2. Benchling · 3. SciNote | #1 |
| AI-agnostic | For buyers who think the agent story is hype: the agentic AI weight cut to 1, the rest redistributed. | 1. TeselaGen · 2. Benchling · 3. SciNote | #1 |
| Equal weights | No editorial opinion at all: every criterion counts the same. | 1. TeselaGen · 2. Benchling · 3. Scispot | #1 |
The top three change with the weighting. Across these five profiles, TeselaGen is first in three, second in one and third in one.
Shortlists
Starting shortlists by lab profile
Where we would start a shortlist for common lab profiles, and the criteria behind each pick. A shortlist is a starting point for a pilot, not a verdict.
| Lab profile | Start with | Criteria behind it |
|---|---|---|
| A biologics discovery org already standardised on Benchling | TeselaGen, Benchling | If you want to move, a dedicated importer brings sequences, oligos, plates, inventory and notebook entries from a Benchling export into TeselaGen. Staying is also a reasonable default, since switching always has a cost. |
| A regulated GxP manufacturing or QC lab | LabWare, IDBS, Dotmatics | Compliance: validation-ready platforms with vendor validation support and long GxP track records. |
| A synthetic chemistry team | Revvity Signals | Chemistry tooling (native ChemDraw integration) and a published list price. |
| A university or core facility buying for hundreds of mixed-discipline users | TeselaGen, LabArchives, Benchling | Institutional procurement and compliance: LabArchives publishes per-seat pricing, has a free edition, FedRAMP authorization and a SOC 2 Type II audit, aligns with HIPAA, and runs an NIH-wide deployment. Benchling is free for academic use. TeselaGen where those users also need molecular design, with Community Edition free for the long tail. |
| A lab that wants an open source, self-hosted and managed solution | eLabFTW, then RSpace | Openness and exit rights: both are open source (AGPL) and can be self-hosted or bought as a managed service. eLabFTW adds RFC 3161 timestamping and .eln / RO-Crate export, and is free to self-host. |
| A small team with no budget and no IT | TeselaGen Community, or the eLabFTW or LabArchives free tiers | Entry cost: all have free tiers, so a team can start recording properly now and choose a paid product later. |
| A small-molecule discovery group | CDD Vault | Chemical registration, assay data and inventory as modules of one platform. |
Not part of the comparison
TeselaGen's DNA design tools
This comparison covers notebook capabilities, and DNA design is outside its scope. TeselaGen also builds proprietary DNA design tools — assembly design and simulation (Gibson, Golden Gate, MoClo), CRISPR guide design and combinatorial library design — that work directly alongside its notebook, registry and inventory.
Attribution
Sources
Public sources only — vendor documentation, press releases, pricing pages, release notes and third-party buyer guides. No paid placement and no sponsorship.
Check our own claims
Market & vendor claims
- Siemens acquires Dotmatics to extend AI-powered software portfolio to Life SciencesSiemens press release, April 2025
- Siemens completes acquisition of DotmaticsSiemens press release, July 2025
- Insightful Science acquires LabArchives to expand its electronic lab notebook and LIMS solutionsDotmatics (then Insightful Science) news, November 2021
- About IDBS: part of Danaher Life SciencesIDBS, company page, checked October 2026
- Launching Revvity: a scientific solutions companyRevvity press release, May 2023
- SciShield and eLabNext merge to create SciSureNewsfile press release, January 2025
- SciSure acquires Labfolder and Labregister from LabforwardNewsfile press release, September 2025
- Labguru and Mosaic come together under new Cenevo brandLabguru press release, July 2025
- Taking end-to-end recipe management in the pharma industry to the next level (Riffyn acquisition)Siemens Software blog, April 2022
- Elsevier acquires laboratory data management tool HivebenchINIST La List, June 2016
- Bruker announces acquisition of scientific software provider ArxspanBruker press release, March 2019
- Thermo acquires Core InformaticsTechnology Networks, March 2017
- Agilent acquire SLIMS owner GenohmTechnology Networks, May 2018
- Sapio Sciences introduces world's first 3rd-generation ELNSapio Sciences press release, September 2025
- Benchling launches AI Connectors to power the data ecosystem for R&DPR Newswire, April 2026
- Benchling release notes, volumes 1-4Benchling product documentation, 2026
- Scispot launches MCP server to bring governed AI actions to live lab workflowsPRWeb, March 2026
- Scispot MCP Server documentation (private beta)Scispot documentation, checked October 2026
- LabArchives pricingLabArchives, pricing page, checked October 2026
- Trust, security & complianceLabArchives, checked October 2026
- National Institutes of Health selects LabArchives as its one approved multi-discipline ELNLabArchives blog, August 2024
- Benchling for academicsBenchling, checked October 2026
- Signals Notebook Standard: list priceRevvity Signals shop, checked October 2026
- Free ELN software: Sapio Bronze EditionSapio Sciences, checked October 2026
- Plans for government, industry and startup labsSciNote, checked October 2026
- SubscriptionsLabii documentation, checked October 2026
- RSpace pricingResearch Space, pricing page, checked October 2026
- Research Space embraces open source to empower FAIR data workflowsResearch Space blog, June 2024
- eLabFTW: free and open-source electronic lab notebook; licence (AGPL-3.0)Deltablot / eLabFTW project, checked October 2026
- Traceability and auditability (RFC 3161 trusted timestamping)eLabFTW documentation, checked October 2026
- The .eln file format (RO-Crate)The ELN Consortium, checked October 2026
- CDD Vault: biology and chemistry data in one system; free access for academic researchers in AfricaCollaborative Drug Discovery, checked October 2026
- LIMS validation servicesLabWare, checked October 2026
- Comprehensive GxP solutionsIDBS, checked October 2026
- Dotmatics ELN: GxP validation and compliance supportDotmatics, checked October 2026
- Comparison of the best electronic lab notebook, v0.1Labii, July 2017 — the edition this one succeeds
Ratings are judgement calls informed by public evidence, not measurements, and this is a documentary comparison rather than a lab trial — run a real pilot with your own data before you sign anything. Think we got something wrong? Tell us, including if you work for one of the vendors here.
Product names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. This comparison is TeselaGen's commentary based on public information and is not endorsed by any other vendor listed.
Try Tesela AI for free
Design libraries, generate protocols, and optimize experiments with AI agents. No credit card required.