Define the job before choosing the category
“LIMS” can describe products with very different scope. One buyer may need instrument connectivity and high-volume processing; another may need a controlled manual workflow for a smaller service. Write your requirements as observable tasks rather than labels.
A useful fit sheet could look like this:
| Task | Essential for this evaluation? | What would demonstrate it? |
|---|---|---|
| Connect a request to its samples | Yes | Follow two synthetic samples back to the correct request. |
| Enter and review a result | Yes | Show who can change the result and who can authorise the next step. |
| Import instrument output | Decide explicitly | Use a supported example file or mark the requirement outside scope. |
| Produce the required report | Yes | Review a complete synthetic report, including a correction scenario. |
| Retrieve records later | Yes | Locate the request, evidence and issued output without reconstructing them manually. |
This is a proposed buying aid, not a mandatory compliance checklist. Your method, service and operating procedures determine the actual requirements.
Compare the complete commitment
A monthly price is only one line in the decision. Ask separately about configuration, migration, training, support, storage, integrations and data export. Some may be included, some may be quoted separately, and some may not be offered.
For an internal comparison, use:
First-year commitment = recurring charges + agreed setup work + internal implementation effort + necessary external services.
Keep commercial charges and your own staff effort visible as different categories. Do not invent an hourly saving to make the business case work. Record the assumptions, then test the important ones during the evaluation.
Ask what counts towards the quoted limits. Does one submission contain several samples? Are client users counted? What happens to archived records? What happens at the limit? Accurate price presentation matters, but a buyer also needs an agreed understanding of the units being purchased. The ACCC’s price-display guidance explains the principles for presenting applicable prices and charges.
Examine review and correction, not just data entry
A clean entry screen is only part of the workflow. Ask the supplier to show a result returned for correction, a reviewer who cannot approve their own action where your procedure prohibits it, and a report that must be updated after issue.
Treat each as a question, not an assumption that every product supports the same control. Record whether the demonstrated behaviour meets your requirement, needs an agreed workaround or is outside scope.
Keep software fit separate from accreditation
ISO/IEC 17025 concerns the competence, impartiality and consistent operation of laboratories. A software purchase is not equivalent to meeting that standard; the ISO public overview describes its scope. Your laboratory still needs to determine which requirements apply to its activities and how its processes satisfy them.
Avoid a buying decision based on a general “compliant” badge. Ask which specific records, restrictions and decisions the software supports—and what evidence the supplier can show.
Use a narrow pilot to make the decision
Start with synthetic data and one agreed workflow. Set a small number of pass, gap and stop conditions. Include a normal case, a correction, a permission boundary and a record-retrieval exercise. Decide who will accept each result before the demonstration begins.
The outcome should be a fit decision, not simply that the interface looked promising. A narrow product may be the right choice when its boundaries match the job. A broader system may be necessary when integration, scale or specialised processing is essential from the start.
Where AureqoLab fits
Review AureqoLab’s current scope before comparing it with a full LIMS. Use the indicative pricing as a starting point for questions, not a substitute for an agreed pilot.
A Request a product walkthrough is most useful when you bring one workflow, one difficult exception and a clear statement of what is outside the evaluation.