About AI Pharma Tools

Why This Site Exists

I spent over a decade working in pharmaceutical development before launching AI Pharma Tools. During that time I watched dozens of AI vendors pitch "transformative" platforms to our teams, most of which fell apart the moment they hit real-world regulatory constraints. Trial design assistants that ignored ICH E6 guidelines. Pharmacovigilance dashboards that couldn't handle MedDRA coding at scale. Tools marketed as FDA-ready that had never been through a single inspection.

I started this site because the people evaluating these tools deserve better information than a vendor demo and a case study written by the vendor's marketing department. Every review on AI Pharma Tools comes from hands-on testing. I sign up, run the tool against realistic pharma workflows, and report exactly what I find: what works, what breaks, and what the sales team glosses over.

This is not a directory that lists every tool with a star rating. It is an editorial site written for people who work in drug discovery, clinical operations, regulatory affairs, and pharmacovigilance. If a tool is genuinely useful, I will say so. If it is not ready for regulated environments, I will say that too.

How We Make Money

AI Pharma Tools earns revenue through affiliate partnerships. When you click a link to a tool on this site and sign up or purchase a subscription, we may receive a commission from that vendor. This is how we keep the site running without paywalls or gated content.

Here is what that means in practice: affiliate commissions never influence our reviews. A tool that pays higher commissions does not get a better rating. A tool that offers no affiliate program still gets reviewed if it is relevant to pharmaceutical professionals. Our testing process and conclusions are the same regardless of whether a commercial relationship exists.

We believe this model works because it aligns our incentives with yours. We only earn when we recommend tools that readers actually find valuable enough to try. If we push bad tools, people stop trusting us, and the site stops working. Honest assessments are not just an editorial principle; they are how this business survives.

Editorial Standards

• No sponsored content without disclosure. If a vendor pays for placement, it will be clearly labeled. To date, we have not accepted any sponsored posts.
• No pay-for-play rankings. Tool rankings and comparison tables are based on our testing methodology and publicly documented criteria. Vendors cannot pay to move up a list.
• Hands-on testing only. We do not review tools based on press releases or demo videos. Every tool that receives a review on this site has been tested against real pharmaceutical use cases.
• Corrections published openly. If we get something wrong, we update the article with a visible correction notice and date. We do not quietly edit published reviews.
• Regulatory context included. Pharma is a regulated industry. Our reviews address compliance considerations (GxP, 21 CFR Part 11, EU Annex 11) where relevant, because a tool that works well but cannot pass an audit is not useful to you.