If you've been a Labguru user, the past year has brought some change. Battery Ventures acquired Labguru in April 2024; the combined Labguru + Titian (the company behind the Mosaic sample management platform) business later launched under the Cenevo brand in July 2025. Labguru continues to operate as a product within Cenevo, alongside Mosaic - but the company name, the brand, and the strategic direction have shifted toward what Cenevo describes as the "smart connected lab": a platform combining experimental data management with sample orchestration and AI capabilities.
For many existing customers, the transition has been continuous. Cenevo has communicated ongoing investment in both Labguru and Mosaic, and the underlying products have kept working as before. But the rebrand is a natural moment for current users and those evaluating the platform to look at what else is out there.
To be clear, Cenevo/Labguru is a capable platform. It holds a 4.6/5 star rating on G2, with users consistently praising the inventory management, the audit trail, and the customer support team. The integration of ELN with sample and reagent tracking is a recurring positive in reviews - and for labs running structured workflows with barcoding, equipment scheduling, and reagent consumption tracking, that integration delivers real value. Customizability is another strength: teams can build out workflows without heavy IT involvement, and the API gives technical users a path to custom integration.
But the platform isn't without its friction points, and they're worth being honest about because they tend to be the reasons labs start looking around. The most common theme in user reviews is that the interface can be slow - particularly when working with larger datasets, doing bulk actions, or loading data-heavy pages. Table functionality is another consistent critique: reviewers on G2 and Capterra consistently flag that copy-pasting from Excel or Word is awkward, multi-cell paste doesn't work well, and importing data from external sources is often clunky. There's also a learning curve worth flagging - while the system is praised for being customizable, getting up to speed often requires more clicks and more navigation than new team members expect.
On cost, Cenevo doesn't publish pricing publicly, but G2's perceived cost rating sits at 4 out of 5 dollar signs - suggesting users feel the platform sits at the higher end of the market, particularly for smaller labs and teams outside academia.
And then there's the practical question that doesn't show up in feature comparisons but matters in the daily reality of using a platform: how the post-merger Cenevo product roadmap will balance Labguru's experimental-centric strengths with Mosaic's sample-centric automation focus. That balance is still being worked out, and labs evaluating now should be asking direct questions about which roadmap they're buying into.
My honest take, up front - whether you're already on Labguru and weighing a move or just doing your due diligence on the options - IGOR is the alternative I'd recommend first for any lab that wants a full ELN and LIMS in one place without an enterprise price tag. But if you'd rather line up all the viable options and compare them yourself before deciding, here are five worth evaluating. I've tried to be honest about the strengths and limitations of each, including the one we've built.
1. IGOR
IGOR is a cloud-based electronic lab notebook with integrated LIMS capabilities, built specifically for research teams in the life sciences. It was designed by lab scientists - not a software company that happened to enter the life sciences market - which means the decisions about what to prioritize, and how features should work together, came from direct multi-decade bench experience. The result is a platform scientists tend to find familiar straight away. Setup is intuitive and customization doesn't require coding knowledge. Most teams are using it productively within days, or a few weeks at most for larger groups with more complex workflows. You can shape your own workspace through point-and-click, without needing IT or anyone from the vendor side.
The underlying idea is simple: your experiment records, raw data, SOPs, and inventory should live in the same system and be properly linked. When you open a notebook entry, you should be able to see exactly which reagents, samples, and protocols were involved. When you open a sample, you should be able to trace every experiment it's touched. End-to-end connectivity like that is something labs often try to stitch together across a number of separate tools - in IGOR, it's native.
None of that ease of use comes at the expense of security or compliance either. IGOR is 21 CFR Part 11 compliant and supports GLP work. Tamper-proof audit trails, document versioning, and electronic signature workflows are standard, not paid add-ons. Each user gets unique authentication with role-based permissions, enforced at both the application and database layer through row-level security. Data is encrypted in transit and at rest, and backed up across multiple regions so there's no single point of failure.
The other thing that sets IGOR apart is the combination of enterprise-level functionality with startup-friendly pricing that's actually accessible to smaller teams. In a market where that level of capability typically comes with a price tag to match, that's a meaningful differentiator. You get a genuinely full-featured platform - ELN, LIMS, SOP management, project management, electronic signatures, compliance tools - without hidden fees, seat minimums, or surprise add-ons.
What the platform brings together in one integrated system:
- ELN - rich text editing, image galleries with annotation tools, formula-supported tables with Excel or CSV import and export, and direct links to SOPs, samples, reagents, and other materials from your inventory. Any data file type can be attached and linked directly to entries, so the evidence behind a result stays with the result.
- Lab inventory management with LIMS capabilities - customizable repositories, interactive storage maps, sample relationship tracking with visual lineage mapping, full sample history with audit trail, and real-time inventory visibility across your team.
- SOP management - write, version, approve, and issue procedures in the same system where your team actually works. No more hunting through shared drives for the current version, or finding out someone followed an outdated protocol three weeks after the fact.
- Experiment templates - fully customizable and shareable across teams, so common assays are set up consistently and scientists save time while documenting their activities at the bench.
- Project management - built-in project tracking to coordinate research activities across teams and departments, with direct links to the experimental data generated within each project.
- Dedicated Team Workspaces - independently configurable per group, department, or research project. Your cell biology team and your chemistry team each get a setup that works for them, without one cluttering the other.
- Real-time research collaboration - secure data sharing and knowledge transfer between team members, electronic signature workflows that keep review and approval inside the system rather than in email chains, and straightforward team management so adding new researchers, reassigning projects, or offboarding a leaving team member doesn't cause disruption.
- Fine-grained user permissions and access controls - configurable at the team workspace level, so access reflects each team member's role and responsibilities.
- Companion ELN mobile app - lets bench scientists photograph results or notes and upload observations directly to the right notebook entry from the bench.
For labs coming from Labguru specifically, several of the friction points users frequently flag are areas IGOR was designed around. Data import takes seconds, not minutes: Excel and CSV files upload directly into table sections - a few clicks and the data is in. No retyping data, and no transcription errors to clean up later. Copy-pasting text from Word, PDFs, or other formats into IGOR's text sections is equally straightforward - and the formatting comes through intact. Formula support inside tables handles the kind of in-line calculations that come up daily at the bench, so spreadsheets don't need to live alongside your notebook entries - they live right inside them. Inventory storage navigation is easily customizable and built around the actual hierarchy of how labs organize samples, with intuitive movement between racks, boxes, and locations. And the permission model is genuinely fine-grained, with row-level security that prevents the kinds of exposure that have come up in user reviews of other platforms - things like any admin being able to delete an entire account, or users being able to move data outside the organization.
What users say (G2and Capterra): IGOR holds a 4.9 out of 5 star rating across G2 and Capterra. The themes that come up most often are ease of use and minimal setup time - reviewers regularly note how quickly their teams got going and how easy the setup was. Customer support gets called out in almost every review as a real strength. The fact that the ELN and inventory live in the same connected system is frequently flagged as a genuine time-saver, and reviewers in regulated lab environments give specific credit to the template and compliance features. On the critical side, some users have asked for more self-serve training materials and how-to videos. That's fair feedback, and we've acted on it - we recently published an IGOR User Handbook that covers every part of the platform in detail. We've also been expanding the knowledge base, and a library of self-serve training videos is currently being added for all IGOR customers.
Where we're still building: IGOR doesn't yet have dedicated chemistry or molecular biology tools - if your team lives in plasmid design and sequence analysis, Benchling and Labguru still have the edge. Instrument integration for lab automation and AI-powered data summaries and visualizations are both on the roadmap. As a newer platform, our user community is smaller than Cenevo's, which means you won't find as many third-party tutorials and forum threads. We're growing quickly, but we're not pretending to be at that scale yet.
Best for: Small to mid-size research labs in biotech, pharma, and academia that need a fully integrated ELN and LIMS without a steep learning curve, sluggish performance on large datasets, or opaque enterprise pricing. Especially well suited for teams that found Labguru's table functionality, navigation, or speed frustrating, or who want pricing transparency in their evaluation.
If you want to see how it handles your own workflows, book a demo and we'll go through it together.
2. Benchling
Benchling is probably the most well-known name in biotech lab software at this point, and for labs evaluating Cenevo who also need depth in molecular biology, it's worth a serious look. The sequence editor, plasmid design tools, primer design, and biological entity registry are deeper than most ELN platforms offer. For a team where half your scientists' day involves DNA or protein work, that depth has value, and the user community around Benchling is large, active, and supported by frequent product updates.
The trade-offs are also worth being clear about. The learning curve with Benchling is real - reviewers consistently note that the platform isn't particularly intuitive when you're new to it, and the depth of features takes time to navigate. There's also a hidden headcount cost that catches many labs off guard. In practice, larger Benchling deployments often need someone acting as an internal administrator, with a meaningful portion of their week going to configurations, onboarding, and troubleshooting. For a 200-person biotech with a dedicated informatics function, that's manageable. For a smaller team, it can be a real burden.
Pricing is the other big consideration. Benchling doesn't make pricing available publicly, which makes genuine cost comparison difficult. Based on user reports and secondary sources, startup plans are reported to begin around $15,000 per year, with enterprise contracts scaling well beyond that. What tends to catch labs off guard is the price jump that comes with graduating from the startup tier - the next pricing level is a meaningful step up, and several teams we've spoken to reached that point, ran the numbers, and decided the cost wasn't justified anymore.
For labs coming from Labguru, the Cenevo vs. Benchling comparison usually depends on what's driving the move. If the issue is the speed and the data import behavior, and your team doesn't need deep molecular biology tooling, Benchling is likely overkill - and you'll run into different friction points around cost and complexity. If the issue is that you've outgrown Labguru's molecular biology capabilities and you have the resources to support a bigger platform, Benchling makes more sense.
What users say (G2, Capterra): Benchling's strongest praise comes from molecular biology users - sequence design, primer linking, plasmid maps, and the ability to register and reuse oligos and constructs across a team are the features that come up most often as standouts. Reviewers also consistently like the integrated collaboration model: protocol linking, the ability to tag colleagues, time-stamped change history, and the @-reference system that lets you connect entries to past experiments.
The critical themes are equally consistent. File and folder management is the most common complaint: multiple reviewers describe it as "tedious to move and duplicate files," with copy-pasting files described as clunky and search performance flagged as inconsistent. Navigation gets called out repeatedly, particularly for new users - reviewers note that the menu structure isn't intuitive and that it takes significant time to learn the platform well enough to navigate without getting lost. Performance issues with large datasets come up frequently as well - slow loading when uploading images or working with image-heavy entries, and degradation as data volumes grow over time. Inventory and sample tracking draws mixed reviews: some users find it useful, while several report it's difficult to use even after extensive configuration, with caching delays on inventory fields and confusion when features change between releases.
There's also a structural critique that gets flagged in longer reviews: the modular pricing model means important features sit behind additional add-on costs, and several users describe the cumulative effect as a series of unexpected per-user upgrades layered on top of the base subscription. A related friction point in reviews is the apparent lack of a discounted guest or reviewer license - it looks like every person who needs to sign off on an ELN entry needs a full paid Benchling account, which becomes a real cost issue at Benchling's per-user price point when external collaborators, occasional reviewers, or non-Benchling colleagues need to verify or approve work.
Best for: Molecular biology teams whose daily work centers on sequence design, plasmid construction, and biological entity registration - and who have the budget, the headcount, and the appetite to absorb Benchling's complexity in exchange for that functionality depth.
3. SciNote
SciNote sits at the lightweight, entry-level end of the ELN market, open-source at its core, with a free tier for individual users. That makes it a low-barrier way in, and it has a real following among academic labs, government research groups, and early-stage teams on tight budgets. It covers the documentation basics well: experiment protocols, team collaboration, file attachments, and project structure. Its paid Premium plans aren't priced publicly, though, so you'll need to go through sales to find out what it actually costs. Compliance features like 21 CFR Part 11 support, e-signatures, and audit trails sit in that paid tier.
For labs coming from Labguru, the honest comparison comes down to depth. SciNote does have inventory and sample tracking, but it sits at the shallower end. Sample relationships and storage-location mapping, capabilities dedicated inventory tools have offered for years, only arrived in SciNote in 2024, and storage locations are a paid add-on rather than part of the core product. Reviewers also describe the inventory tables as awkward to navigate and missing functionality you'd expect from a basic spreadsheet. And in our own conversations, labs that have used SciNote often tell us the same thing: it works well early on, but they've outgrown it as they've scaled, and it stopped giving them everything they need.
What users say (G2, Capterra): Customer support is the most consistent praise. The template system and automated report generation get credit for cutting repetitive documentation, and several reviewers flag the move from paper to SciNote as a real quality-of-life improvement.
The criticisms are just as consistent. Reviewers call the interface clunky and not especially intuitive, with redundant steps and a lot of clicking through nested sections to get anywhere. The projects/experiments/tasks hierarchy isn't obvious to new users, and the learning curve comes up repeatedly. Table formatting doesn't fully carry through into Word report exports. And features are bundled into large add-on packages rather than sold individually, so labs often pay for capability they don't need to unlock the one they do.
Best for: Academic labs, government research groups, and early-stage startups on tight budgets that need a working ELN for the basics.
4. SciSure (formerly eLabNext / eLabJournal)
SciSure was formed in January 2025 through the merger of eLabNext - the company behind the widely used eLabJournal ELN - and SciShield, an Environmental Health & Safety platform. In September 2025, SciSure also acquired Labfolder and Labregister from Labforward, expanding its footprint further. So SciSure is really a consolidation of several established brands: eLabJournal/eLabNext, SciShield, and now Labfolder and Labregister. If you've come across any of those, they now sit under the SciSure umbrella, though it also means the combined product line is still being integrated. The resulting product is what they call a Scientific Management Platform (SMP): a unified environment combining ELN and inventory management with EHS, compliance, training, and safety documentation.
eLabJournal had a strong following, particularly in European academic labs and research institutions, and the underlying ELN is well regarded for being flexible and straightforward to use. Version control, protocol management, barcode scanning, and a mobile app are all solid. The platform integrates with a range of third-party tools through an API and a marketplace of add-ons.
For labs coming from Labguru, SciSure is one of the more like-for-like alternatives in terms of scope - both platforms aim at the unified-system end of the market, with ELN, inventory, and compliance under one roof. The differentiation is in emphasis: SciSure puts more weight on EHS, safety, and compliance documentation, which makes it particularly appealing for labs in regulated environments or institutional settings where audit-readiness is a recurring concern.
What users say (G2 and Capterra): The dominant praise theme is ease of use and customer support - SciSure has won an "Ease of Use" badge on Capterra, and the onboarding team is frequently called out as a real strength. Reviewers consistently like the inventory module, sample-experiment linking, and audit trail functionality. The platform's interface is generally described as clean, simple, and quick to learn.
The critical themes are equally specific. File upload behavior is worth pressure-testing during a demo. Older reviews describe attaching multiple files to a sample as cumbersome - no multi-file select, no memory of which folder you were last in - meaning users were clicking through the full folder hierarchy for every file. SciSure has overhauled its inventory system across 2024 and 2025, and the original inventory system is now deprecated, so the specific issue may have been addressed, but it's the kind of thing worth confirming hands-on.
Table and copy-paste behavior is another recurring complaint: pasting tables into entries is described as poor, and the workaround of uploading Excel files instead creates its own problem, because reviewing entries later means downloading every attached file separately.
Sample relationships and linking have functional gaps. Several reviewers want bidirectional parent-child sample relationships and note that a surprising number of items in the platform aren't links - things like alerts require searching rather than clicking through, which adds friction to navigation that should be straightforward.
The folder structure isn't very flexible, and reviewers report that organizing experiments outside the default hierarchy is harder than it should be.
The EHS/SciShield components carry additional cost that smaller organizations can struggle to justify, and SciSure doesn't publish pricing, so you're contacting sales to find out what it costs. Several reviewers flag that smaller labs and organizations on tighter budgets find the initial and recurring fees hard to justify.
Best for: Research institutions, biotech companies, and academic labs - particularly those in environments where EHS and compliance documentation are meaningful operational considerations, not just an occasional audit concern.
5. LabArchives
LabArchives has been a familiar name in academic and government research for years. Its partnership strategy - including integrations with university systems and FedRAMP authorization for federal labs - gives it strong institutional credibility. In 2021, LabArchives was acquired by Insightful Science and then integrated into the broader Dotmatics platform in 2022. The platform now holds FedRAMP Moderate authorization and has been selected for NIH-wide use, with a 7,000-user enterprise license across NIH. If your university already has a LabArchives site licence, it's often the path of least resistance.
The ELN itself does the documentation, collaboration, and data sharing fundamentals well. Version control and audit trails are well implemented, and because LabArchives has been focused on the academic market for years, the product reflects how academic labs actually work. The free tier - up to 1GB total storage - is a useful entry point for individual researchers. Pricing on paid tiers is significantly lower for academic users than for commercial customers: LabArchives publishes around $330 per user annually for academic Professional vs. roughly $575 for the same tier on the commercial side. Inventory and Scheduler add-ons are available as separate modules at additional cost.
For labs coming from Labguru, the relevant comparison depends on what you actually need. If you're an academic lab and what you valued in Labguru was the ELN side - documentation, version control, collaboration - LabArchives is a credible alternative, particularly if your institution already has access. If what you valued was the inventory management, the equipment scheduling, the sample-to-experiment linking, the connected LIMS workflow, LabArchives covers that ground far less completely. Inventory is a separate paid module rather than a native part of the ELN, and the LIMS functionality is thin compared to platforms built around an integrated approach.
What users say (G2, Capterra, ResearchGate): Positive reviews tend to come from academic users who appreciate the price point, the university integrations, and the core documentation functionality. The free tier and low-cost academic pricing are repeatedly cited as standout strengths. On the critical side, the interface is consistently described as outdated and less intuitive than modern alternatives. Users on ResearchGate and other forums have flagged specific frustrations including buggy rich text editing, and poor copy-paste behavior from Word documents. Support responsiveness draws mixed reviews. Limited mobile functionality is mentioned regularly. These are long-standing complaints rather than new ones, suggesting the platform has not fully kept pace with UX expectations in the broader market.
The more significant structural limitation is that LabArchives is fundamentally an ELN. Inventory capabilities are frequently cited in reviews as too limited to be genuinely useful, and there is no meaningful LIMS functionality to speak of in the way labs migrating from Labguru would expect. For academic labs doing basic research, that's usually fine. For labs growing into more structured workflows - or those that straddle academia and industry - it becomes an issue fairly quickly.
Best for: Academic and government research labs, especially those at institutions with existing LabArchives agreements. Less suitable for labs migrating from Labguru who relied on its inventory, sample tracking, or LIMS capabilities.
How to Actually Choose
After working through all of these, the decision usually comes down to a few concrete questions. What's your realistic per-user budget per year? How much IT bandwidth do you have for implementation and ongoing maintenance? Is compliance a current requirement, or something you'll need to grow into? And - probably the most important question - will the people who actually use this every day adopt it and stick with it?
A few questions worth asking specifically during demos:
- How does inventory connect to the notebook? Native integration vs. a separate module makes a real difference to how much manual reconciliation your team ends up doing.
- How do permissions actually work? Can you configure access at the workspace level, the project level, the entry level? Granular access control matters more than most platforms advertise upfront, and the permissions architecture is where some platforms have surprising gaps.
- What does pricing look like at 2x and 5x our current team size? Get the numbers for where you'll be, not just where you are.
My advice, and yes I'm biased because I work on one of these products, is to run trials with two or three options using actual bench scientists. Not a polished vendor demo with someone from sales driving. A real trial where your team enters real data, runs real workflows, and identifies their own friction points. The tool that gets the least resistance from the people who have to open it every morning is probably the right one.
Curious whether IGOR is the right fit for your workflows? Book a demo.
FAQs
Is Labguru the same as Cenevo?
Labguru is now part of Cenevo, a company formed in July 2025 through the merger of Labguru and Titian Software (makers of Mosaic). Cenevo is the parent brand, Labguru remains the name of the ELN product, and Mosaic remains Titian's sample-management and automation platform. The two are being integrated under the Cenevo umbrella.
What are the best Labguru alternatives for small labs?
IGOR is usually the strongest fit. It brings a full ELN with integrated LIMS, SOP management, experiment templates, and project coordination into one connected system, at pricing that's published openly, with no seat minimums or hidden add-ons. Labguru, Benchling, and SciSure all sit at the higher end on G2's perceived-cost scale.
Is there a cheaper alternative to Cenevo/Labguru?
Cenevo doesn't publish pricing, and Labguru sits at the higher end on G2's perceived-cost scale. IGOR publishes its pricing openly, and its Momentum plan, with the full ELN and LIMS, comes in well below the enterprise platforms, with no seat minimums or hidden add-ons. LabArchives is cheaper still, with published academic pricing and a free tier, but it's worth knowing what you trade for that: the interface is widely described as outdated, and its inventory and LIMS capabilities are limited, which becomes a real problem for biotech teams that need proper sample tracking and connected workflows.
What's the difference between an ELN and a LIMS, and do I need both?
An ELN handles experiment documentation: protocols, observations, results, attachments. A LIMS handles sample and inventory management: tracking what you have, where it is, and its history across experiments. Most modern research labs need both, which is why integrated ELN and LIMS platforms have become the default starting point for an evaluation. IGOR is built that way, as one connected system rather than two tools stitched together. For a full breakdown, see our ELN vs. LIMS guide.
If you’re evaluating ELNs for a smaller team or startup, also worth a read: How to choose the best ELN for your biotech startup.