Galux vs Nabla Bio (2026)
Both design antibodies and proteins from scratch, and they describe their engines differently. Galux pairs AI with the physics of how proteins fold, designing from first principles, and points to de novo antibody design as the test of its accuracy. It works through partnerships, with AstraZeneca and with Dong-A ST on antibodies for antibody drug conjugates, and has posted a technical preprint on its antibody design. Nabla Bio leans on a generative model trained on sequence and structure, aimed at the membrane protein class, and publishes its results target by target with the misses included. Both are preclinical, and both earn through collaborations with large pharmaceutical companies. Galux is worth a look for a team drawn to a physics informed design approach and antibody drug conjugate work. Nabla is the one when the target is a membrane protein and published, target by target evidence is what matters.
- A design engine that combines AI with atomistic physics, aimed at proteins and antibodies from first principles.
- A named collaboration with Dong-A ST on antibodies for antibody drug conjugates, plus work with AstraZeneca.
- A fit for teams interested in a physics informed approach to de novo design.
- Generative de novo design concentrated on multipass membrane proteins.
- Results 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. Galux 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 | Galux | Nabla Bio |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Drug Discovery AI | Drug Discovery AI |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2021 |
| Headquarters | Seoul, Republic of Korea | Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States |
| Website | galux.co.kr | 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 Galux its top capability grade on AI Centrality. Set against Nabla Bio, Galux 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 Galux, 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 Galux or Nabla Bio?
The AI Health Index grades Nabla Bio higher than Galux on every axis that separates them, several axes, including Autonomy and Oversight Model, Model and Technology Transparency and Model Supply Chain Disclosure. Galux does not grade higher on any scored axis.
Where do Galux and Nabla Bio differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Galux and Nabla Bio is on AI Governance and Bias Disclosure, where Galux 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 Galux and Nabla Bio grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Galux 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 Galux and Nabla Bio not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Galux 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 work through pharmaceutical partnerships, with design preprints posted rather than peer reviewed papers.
Ask both for design success rates with denominators on targets like yours, and how each reports the designs that failed in the lab.