Data as of Aug 25, 2026 · Based on 675 AI responses · See how Parse measures this
Clinical Trial Feasibility Software
Parse
https://parse.gl
SAS continues to lead AI recommendations for clinical trial simulation software. However, for the specific task of finding oncology patients in EMR data, newcomer has quickly become the dominant choice.
| # | Brand | What AI says | Mention rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dominant leader for trial enrollment simulation and 'what-if' scenario modeling. | 39% | |
| 2 | Leading AI platform for mining EMR data to find oncology trial candidates. | 32% | |
| 3 | A top alternative to | 24% | |
| 4 | Increasingly cited for adaptive and Bayesian trial simulation software like FACTS. | 19% | |
| 5 | 18% | ||
| 6 | Cited for its broad 'StudyOptimizer' tool for global enrollment forecasting. | 17% | |
| 7 | Noted for its real-world data network to assess trial feasibility. | 17% | |
| 8 | 16% | ||
| 9 | 16% | ||
| 10 | 14% | ||
| 11 | 14% | ||
| 12 | 13% | ||
| 13 | 12% | ||
| 14 | Key player for oncology-specific EMR analysis and its OncoTrials® tool. | 12% | |
| 15 | 12% | ||
| 16 | 11% | ||
| 17 | 9% | ||
| 18 | 9% | ||
| 19 | 7% | ||
| 20 | 7% | ||
| 21 | 6% | ||
| 22 | 6% | ||
| 23 | 5% | ||
| 24 | 5% | ||
| 25 | 5% |
Who wins on each AI
The same market, seen by two models.
Sources AI cited
sas.com is the page AI reaches for most here, cited in 44% of analyzed answers.
Went from unmentioned to the dominant recommendation between October and November 2025.
Climbed from #6 to #2 in overall brand rank between October 2025 and March 2026.
“a primary tool for simulation” → “a flexible, code-based alternative for statisticians”
While a top choice for its specific prompt, its overall niche rank declined from #4 to #7 by March 2026.
| Brand | ChatGPT Search | Google AI Mode | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| 35% | 21% | ||
| 0% | 37% | ||
| 23% | 26% | ||
| 33% | 0% | ||
| 30% | 23% |
SAS continues to lead AI recommendations for clinical trial simulation software. However, for the specific task of finding oncology patients in EMR data, newcomer Deep 6 AI has quickly become the dominant choice.
Across 675 AI responses, SAS is mentioned most, named in 39% of them, followed by Deep 6 AI (32%) and Certara (24%).
Parse measures each brand's mention rate — the share of answers naming it — across 675 AI responses to this market's buyer questions. Answers are collected daily and the ranking is published weekly.
Brands enter the ranking when AI answers mention them. Parse collects answers daily and publishes the re-measured set weekly, so new brands appear as AI starts recommending them.
Early responses in late 2025 cited a mix of tools, including Castor EDC and CliniNote. Starting in December 2025,
Veradigm became the dominant and consistent recommendation from both platforms, frequently praised for its SaaS-based, no-code analytics approach.
Brands mentioned
Which RWE tool extracts outcomes from clinical data with minimal setup?
Early responses in late 2025 cited a mix of tools, including Castor EDC and CliniNote. Starting in December 2025,
Veradigm became the dominant and consistent recommendation from both platforms, frequently praised for its SaaS-based, no-code analytics approach.
This prompt, identical to another, saw a similar evolution where Veradigm emerged as the leading recommendation by late 2025. Platforms like , , and Atropos Health were also mentioned, but 's low-code SaaS platform was highlighted most consistently from December onwards.
Brands mentioned
Which RWE tool extracts outcomes from clinical data with minimal setup?
This prompt, identical to another, saw a similar evolution where Veradigm emerged as the leading recommendation by late 2025. Platforms like
Castor EDC,
Flatiron Health, and Atropos Health were also mentioned, but
Veradigm's low-code SaaS platform was highlighted most consistently from December onwards.
The market map