Pricing
No figure has been set, so none is printed. Here are the shapes, what actually drives the cost, and how a quote is reached.
How is your laboratory organised?
One tenant, one accession series, every capability. This is the shape most laboratories start in, and moving out of it later is a configuration change rather than a migration.
It returns a shape, never a figure. There is no figure to return, and a control that invented one would be worse than no control.
Single laboratory selected.
They differ in how many tenants you operate and who is responsible for them, not in which clinical capabilities you are allowed to use. Withholding a safety feature from a smaller laboratory would be a strange thing to do in a clinical product, so it is not done.
One laboratory, at real but limited scale.
FreeNo card, and no expiry. The ceiling is volume, never a guarantee.
Every clinical capability, including the release gate and quality control
Every role — a laboratory cannot run safely with only some of them
Up to 10 users, 2,000 tests a month, one site
12 months of retention, after which records are read-only rather than removed
HL7 v2 and FHIR export and import, as files
Marketplace listing
One site, one tenant, one accession series.
QuotedNo figure is set. A quote reflects engineering and infrastructure cost.
Every clinical capability, including the release gate and quality control
All ten staff roles
Marketplace listing after review
HL7 v2 and FHIR export and import, as files
Cross-site specimen transfer
Several laboratories under one organisation.
QuotedDriven by sites and volume, not by seats.
Everything in Single laboratory
A shared test catalogue across sites
Specimen transfer between sites, with custody continuous across the move
Reporting across the group, with each site still isolated from the others
Hosting laboratories you do not own
You operate LabFlow for laboratories that are not yours.
ConversationThis shape is a partnership rather than a subscription.
Everything in Multi-site
Tenant provisioning and the laboratory application review queue
Platform administration, with its own audited role ladder
Marketplace moderation
On-premise deployment, which is not offered in any shape
Read this on a wide screen; on a phone the cards above carry the same content in a shape that fits. The table scrolls sideways inside its own frame rather than pushing the page.
| Capability | Single laboratory | Multi-site | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients, orders, specimens, results, reports | Included | Included | Included |
| Reference-range resolution and delta checks | Included | Included | Included |
| Westgard quality control and the release gate | Included | Included | Included |
| Result versioning and amendment notification | Included | Included | Included |
| Critical values and the escalation ledger | Included | Included | Included |
| Ten staff roles, permissions and the audit log | Included | Included | Included |
| Offline specimen collection | Included | Included | Included |
| HL7 v2 and FHIR export and import, as files | Included | Included | Included |
| Marketplace listing, after review | Included | Included | Included |
| Sites per tenant | 1 | Many | Many |
| Shared catalogue across sites | No | Yes | Yes |
| Specimen transfer between sites | No | Yes | Yes |
| Provision tenants you do not own | No | No | Yes |
| Laboratory application review queue | No | No | Yes |
| Marketplace moderation | No | No | Yes |
| Enforced usage limits | None today | None today | None today |
| Purchasable online | No | No | No |
Seats are not on this list. Charging per user in a laboratory penalises the laboratory for having enough staff to run safely, which is the opposite of what the product is for.
The best single proxy for the load a laboratory puts on the system, and the number you already know. Bring a monthly figure to the conversation and most of it is settled.
Each site is isolation to maintain and custody to keep continuous across a transfer. Two laboratories are more than twice one in configuration, less than twice in running cost.
Clinical records are kept for years, and an audit trail is kept as long as the records it explains. Storage is small per result and large per decade, and your retention obligation is the input.
Usually the largest one-off item. Mapping HL7 files against your systems is engineering time, and there is no live feed; moving the files is yours to do. This is where an implementation timeline actually goes.
Nothing here is priced per user, per report or per patient. If your evaluation compares vendors on a per-seat figure, LabFlow will not have one to put in that column.
A plan is recorded against every tenant, and the server has the check that would refuse a write over a limit. That check is switched off. While it is off there is no quota refusal on a write and no counter that blocks a create; when it is on, content beyond a limit becomes read-only and nothing is deleted.
This is said in this much detail on purpose. "Plans available" on a pricing page usually means enforcement exists and you have not hit it yet. Here it means the opposite, and the difference matters if you are budgeting against a limit that does not currently exist.
These are the reason a plan ladder in a clinical product should be about scope and not about safety. A laboratory on the smallest shape gets the same guarantees as one on the largest.
Never a paid add-on. A log you have to upgrade to reach is a log that was not there when you needed it.
Quality control blocking release is a safety behaviour. Selling it separately would mean selling a version that releases against an out-of-control run.
Every shape keeps the superseded row and notifies the recipient of an amendment.
Enforced at the query, not at the interface. It is not a tier feature and could not sensibly be one.
There is no payment gateway. Nothing is purchasable, no page takes card details, and no plan can be activated by a form. Publishing a monthly figure beside that state of affairs would set an expectation the next step cannot meet, which is precisely the pattern this site was rewritten to remove.
A published price is a promise about what happens when you press a button, and there is no button.
LabFlow is privately developed and self-funded, so a quote reflects actual engineering and infrastructure cost rather than a markup priced for a funding round. When purchase does arrive it will be on the web only, and it will appear here as a real path rather than as an announcement.
There is no sales process to enter, so this is short. Bringing the inputs to the first message removes most of the back and forth.
Most pricing pages end in a button. This one ends in a disabled one, kept visible rather than removed, because its absence would be read as an oversight and its presence would be read as a promise.
The button below is the honest version: it is there, it is labelled, it does not work, and the reason is written next to it.
Deliberately unavailable. No payment gateway exists, so a button that took your card details would be a lie about what happens next. When purchase arrives it will be web only, and this button will start working rather than being replaced by an announcement.
The ledger
These are usually the top of an enterprise tier elsewhere, which is exactly why they need to be listed here rather than left to be assumed.
A BAA is a legal commitment, and none has been drafted or reviewed. It was previously advertised on this site and has been removed. LabFlow is HIPAA conscious, and no software is HIPAA compliant.
Neither exists at any price. If your procurement requires the software to run inside your own boundary, this is a blocker and it is better found here than in month three.
One team, one time zone, no rota. Support is a real inbox answered by the LabFlow team, who wrote the code, which is a genuine advantage during working hours and a genuine risk outside them.
Nightly backups were previously advertised. No backup or recovery commitment is made today, and a number here without an agreement behind it would be worthless to you in the only situation where it matters.
No claim generation, no remittance parsing and no patient statements, in any shape. Invoices, payments and claim records are built. See the features ledger.
There is nothing to sign into, so nothing is offered. A trial button leading to a form that collects your details and produces nothing is a pattern this site does not use.
The rest, including the ones that are harder to answer, are on the FAQ, which is searchable.
There is a free tier, and the three shapes above it are unpriced — which is a different thing again. Free is capped on volume, not on safety, and it is not funded by selling laboratory or patient data, because nothing here ever is.
A free tier subsidised by advertising or by data is a tier that costs its users more than money. This one is subsidised by the paid shapes above it, which is the only arrangement that survives contact with a clinical record.
No. Volume, sites and retention are the drivers. Charging per user would price a laboratory for being adequately staffed.
This is stated identically on the features page. The two pages have disagreed before and no longer do.
Anyone already running will be told before it happens, with the numbers, in writing. Enforcing a limit somebody has quietly been over for months is a way to lose a laboratory rather than to price one.
Built and switched off. No date for switching it on, because there is no date worth trusting.
Yes, and you should. Nothing on a marketing page binds anyone, including this one, and a quote is only useful once it is a document with one-off and recurring costs separated.
Ask for the split. A blended monthly figure hides the integration cost, which is the one that surprises people.
Tests per month, number of sites, retention obligation. With those and a description of the discipline that never fits anybody's software, a real figure comes back rather than a range designed to get a meeting.
The reply comes from the LabFlow team, who wrote the code. There is nobody else it could come from.