Paradigm Health vs Triomics
Two trial matching platforms with real evidence, split by scope and by what comes with the software. Paradigm reasons over full text notes inside the provider record system across a large named network spanning dozens of states, and crucially it supplies recruitment staff alongside the technology, which is usually the difference between a match list and an enrolled patient. Triomics is oncology only and better evidenced for it, with peer reviewed validation, every match traced back to the pathology and biomarker behind it, and the deepest workflow integration in this category. For a cancer centre with coordinators already in place, Triomics does the harder reasoning and shows its working. For a site that has trials but nobody free to work them, Paradigm is selling the missing capacity as much as the software.
- It deploys inside the provider record system and reasons over full text notes with language models rather than structured prefilters, and published a direct comparison making that case.
- The network is specific and verifiable across dozens of states and well over a hundred provider organisations including designated cancer centres.
- It pairs software with recruitment staff, so a site is not left to convert a match list into enrolments on its own.
- It is oncology tuned rather than disease agnostic, which matters because the decisive eligibility detail usually sits in pathology and biomarker text.
- Peer reviewed validation in a recognised digital medicine journal is the strongest evidence position in this category.
- Every match traces back to the pathology, biomarker and note that produced it, and the output lands where the oncology team already works.
Side by Side
| Axis | P Paradigm Health |
T Triomics |
|---|---|---|
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| Model and Technology Transparency | ||
| Clinical and Operational Evidence | ||
| AI Safety and PHI Stewardship | ||
| HIPAA and BAA Posture | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
| FDA and Regulatory Status | ||
| AI Governance and Bias Disclosure | ||
| EHR and Interoperability Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Setting and Specialty Coverage |
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Clinical Decision Support page.
Both should be asked for the false negative rate on eligibility screening, which neither publishes, since an eligible patient who never surfaced is invisible in every metric either reports. Trial matching also inherits documentation bias: patients with thin or fragmented records match less often regardless of eligibility, and that population overlaps with the one trials already under enrol.
Neither publishes a security attestation, and Paradigm publishes nothing on business associate status. Neither publishes pricing, and the commercial shapes differ, since one bundles recruitment staffing and the other does not.