Biolojic Design vs Nabla Bio (2026)
Both design antibodies computationally, and they aim at different kinds of molecule. Biolojic Design engineers antibodies that do more than block a target: epitope specific agonists and antagonists, conditional binders, and what it calls multibodies, single symmetrical antibodies that bind more than one target on the same arm. Its approach has reached patients, through AU-007, a Biolojic designed antibody that Aulos Bioscience took into a cancer trial, described at the time as the earliest computationally designed antibody to do so. Nabla Bio designs conventional and multispecific antibodies from scratch against membrane proteins, and publishes its per target hit rates, but its molecules are still preclinical. Its evidence is the detail of its reported results and its collaborations with AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb and Takeda. Biolojic is the one when the goal is an antibody with a designed function and a track record of reaching the clinic through a partner. Nabla is the one when the challenge is a membrane target and getting a binder at all.
- Antibodies engineered as functional switches: agonists, antagonists, conditional binders and multispecific multibodies.
- A platform whose designs have reached a human trial through a partner, AU-007 with Aulos Bioscience.
- Named autoimmune and oncology programs, including TEV-325 with Teva and a collaboration with Merck KGaA.
- De novo design aimed at the membrane protein class that resists conventional discovery.
- Hit rates published target by target, including targets where the model produced nothing.
- Collaborations with three large pharmaceutical companies against the platform.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Biolojic Design and Nabla Bio are each graded against the same capability taxonomy, from each vendor's own public materials and the regulatory record, under the AI Health Index verification standard. No vendor pays for placement, and no vendor has reviewed this page. How this evidence is graded
Plain facts
| Fact | Biolojic Design | Nabla Bio |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Drug Discovery AI | Drug Discovery AI |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2021 |
| Headquarters | Rehovot, Israel | Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States |
| Website | biolojic.com | nabla.bio |
Side by Side
Each record in one paragraph
Written to be quoted whole. Each paragraph states what the AI Health Index verified about the vendor, with the caveats attached. Generated from this pair’s live capability grades, so it moves when a grade moves.
The AI Health Index awards Biolojic Design its top capability grade on AI Centrality. Set against Nabla Bio, Biolojic Design does not grade higher on any scored axis, though the two are level on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on several axes, including AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Grades reflect evidence the AI Health Index could verify at the last review, so a low grade records disclosure the vendor has not published rather than a capability it has been shown to lack.
Source: AI Health Index, October 2026
The AI Health Index awards Nabla Bio its top capability grade on AI Centrality and AI Governance and Bias Disclosure. Set against Biolojic Design, Nabla Bio grades higher on several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model and Technology Transparency and Model Supply Chain Disclosure. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on several axes, including AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Grades reflect evidence the AI Health Index could verify at the last review, so a low grade records disclosure the vendor has not published rather than a capability it has been shown to lack.
Source: AI Health Index, October 2026
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose Biolojic Design or Nabla Bio?
The AI Health Index grades Nabla Bio higher than Biolojic Design on every axis that separates them, several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model and Technology Transparency and Model Supply Chain Disclosure. Biolojic Design does not grade higher on any scored axis.
Where do Biolojic Design and Nabla Bio differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Biolojic Design and Nabla Bio is on AI Governance and Bias Disclosure, where Biolojic Design grades D and Nabla Bio grades A. That axis sits in the Regulatory and Compliance group, so it should carry the most weight for a buyer whose binding constraint is where regulatory exposure sits and who carries it.
Where do Biolojic Design and Nabla Bio grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Biolojic Design and Nabla Bio the same on several axes, including AI Centrality, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. Neither holds an advantage the index can evidence on those axes, so they should not carry weight in a selection between these two.
What have Biolojic Design and Nabla Bio not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Biolojic Design and Nabla Bio published thin or absent detail on several axes, including AI Safety and PHI Stewardship, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. The AI Health Index treats an absent disclosure as a gap in the public record rather than a failure of the product, so these are the axes to get in writing during diligence instead of inferring from the grade.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Drug Discovery AI page.
Both records were reviewed in October 2026. Neither publishes a price, and both earn through pipelines and partnerships.
Ask both which molecules have advanced beyond the laboratory and through whom, and how each reports the designs that did not work.