Seal vs QBench

1QBench and Seal, side by side.

QBench and Seal both run laboratory work with configurable workflows and keep quality records next to the testing.¹ They are built for different laboratories. QBench is a cloud LIMS that combines testing with a customer portal, quality management, inventory and billing, for testing laboratories across many industries.² Seal is the GxP operating system for biopharma: laboratory, manufacturing and quality workflows share one set of records, so a QC result, the batch it releases and any investigation stay connected under change control.

2What QBench is built for.

QBench is built for testing laboratories that want a modern, configurable LIMS they can largely run and change themselves. QBench Inc. says it was started by laboratory owners and hires former laboratory scientists.³ It describes QBench as a lab operating system: LIMS, customer portal, quality management, inventory, billing, reporting and analytics in one cloud product, used in materials and manufacturing, food and beverage, life sciences, agriculture and environmental testing.²

Work is tracked as orders, samples and tests, with their status in view. Batches carry their controls, and worksheets run calculations with familiar Excel formulas, generate control charts and can require a batch to follow a set order of steps with an audit trail. A catalogue of product specifications shows how many products pass or fail, and a point-and-click template editor builds reports and certificates of analysis that can be generated, approved and released in bulk.⁴ A no-code automations engine sets status checkpoints, triggers re-runs of failed tests and draws down reagent stock.⁵ Instruments connect through file parsers or the QBench API, including chromatography, PCR with plate mapping and clinical analysers.⁶

The quality module tracks issues with configurable categories, root causes and corrective and preventive actions; controls documents with versions, approvers and required acknowledgement; and keeps training sets, equipment documentation, calibration history and maintenance schedules.¹ An open REST API lets other applications act on QBench events, and QBench lists integrations with NetSuite, QuickBooks, Microsoft Dynamics 365, Salesforce, HubSpot and Tableau.⁷²

QBench states that it is ISO 17025 compatible, HIPAA compliant, supports CLIA certification and 21 CFR Part 11 compliance, and undergoes an annual SOC 2 Type II audit.⁸ It is direct about the boundary: implementing QBench does not by itself make a laboratory Part 11 compliant, the laboratory configures the system for its regulatory requirements, and QBench supports customers in staying compliant as they add and change workflows.⁹ It says workflows can often be configured and live in a few weeks.¹⁰

3A testing order, and the batch behind it.

Both products start from the sample. They differ in what the sample’s record is connected to.

In QBench, the record follows the testing service. Samples and subsamples are logged and assigned to batches and plates, assays or panels are assigned, data is recorded in fields and worksheets, and authorised users generate and sign reports and send them to the customer, all within QBench.⁹ Specifications sit in a product catalogue, invoices are generated from the work, and the customer portal lets clients place orders themselves.⁴

In Seal, a QC sample belongs to the batch it informs. It is registered with its material, batch, collection point and required tests, and the method and specification versions are assigned before execution. Each result is evaluated against the version assigned to it, an outside-limit result opens an investigation on the same records, and the laboratory review contributes to batch disposition alongside manufacturing exceptions and quality events.

Seal also runs contract testing on the same principles. In Seal’s contract testing blueprint, each client order is one service record from quote and expected shipment through testing, QA approval, certificate, retains and invoice, and each sample inherits the methods, specifications, OOS communication and reporting terms of its client’s quality agreement. An OOS notification records its content, audience, time and acknowledgement while the laboratory investigation keeps its raw evidence, clients see only what their agreement allows, and billing status never alters laboratory evidence. The blueprint proves the model with one multi-test order that includes a temperature discrepancy on receipt, an OOS notification, an approved retest and a report correction.

4Changing a workflow under change control.

QBench is designed so that the laboratory can change workflows and automations itself, without paying a vendor to rewrite code.⁵ Its quality module versions the laboratory’s documents and records who changed and signed off each version and who was trained on it.¹⁹

In Seal, the change to the workflow is itself the controlled record. A revised method, limit or approval route is prepared as a changeset that carries its requirements and verification. When it is prepared for review, its selected acceptance tests run, including failure cases such as a missing unit, an out-of-range result or an incomplete review, and publication requires current passing results. Work already tested keeps the version it ran under, and the evidence for each configuration change stays with the change.

5Where QBench is the better fit.

QBench is the better fit for testing laboratories that want a self-service cloud LIMS with the commercial side built in.

• You run a testing laboratory in food and beverage, agriculture, environmental or materials testing, where ISO 17025 is the main standard.²⁸
• Your billing and customer data live in QuickBooks, NetSuite, Dynamics 365, Salesforce or HubSpot, and the LIMS should sync with them.²
• You want laboratory administrators to change fields, workflows, automations and report templates themselves without code.⁵⁴
• You need clinical testing support under HIPAA and CLIA alongside other work.⁸
• You want a cloud LIMS live in weeks rather than a longer implementation.¹⁰

6Where Seal is the better fit.

Seal is the better fit when the laboratory serves a GMP biopharma process.

• Your QC results release batches. In Seal’s shared ontology a sample belongs to a batch, a result comes from a test, and an investigation links to the affected work, so laboratory review feeds disposition without copies.
• You need specifications and methods as versioned records, with each result keeping the version it was evaluated against and revisions reviewed for their impact before they apply.
• Your quality system should act on the work: a corrective action can be released as a verified change to the workflow and measured on the runs that follow.
• You want an AI agent to prepare the work. Neil turns an approved method or specification into a proposed workflow, assembles investigation evidence with its sources and drafts the controlled change for your team to approve. In line with the EU’s draft GMP Annex 22 on AI, Neil is not used in GMP execution. It helps set up configuration, which your team verifies and releases under change control.

7Running Seal alongside QBench.

Seal has no dedicated QBench connector. Where a system is not on Seal’s integrations list, Seal’s REST API and Scripts can connect it, and Seal can review its interfaces with you. On its side, QBench offers an open REST API and lets external applications register as event listeners.⁷

Agree the records, the direction of transfer, the credentials and the failure handling before setting up the connection. Scripts are versioned Python in Seal that can call an external service after an event or on a schedule; they are edited in a changeset, tested and published like other Seal records. Start with read access, for example bringing QBench results for a batch into a Seal review. Keep the QBench sample identifier on the linked Seal record rather than creating a second sample identity, keep units, qualifiers and result revisions with each value, and reconcile what arrives against QBench. Treat any write-back as a separate decision with its own controls. The LIMS integration guide and the regulatory guide set out these checks.

8Moving from QBench to Seal.

Move one GMP workflow first. QBench can keep the rest of the laboratory’s work.

1. Choose one release test, incoming-inspection workflow or stability study, or one client order for a contract laboratory.
2. Bring the method, a redacted specification, a representative result and an instrument export. Start with sample material, or arrange an NDA before sharing confidential records.
3. Neil proposes the workflow, and your team checks it against the source. Once the scope is agreed and the inputs received, Seal prepares the first working process and its validation pack within 48 hours. Production timing then depends on scope, interfaces, migration and your release requirements.
4. Exercise the failure cases before release: an outside-limit result, missing evidence, a method-version conflict and a report correction.
5. Agree which system owns each record during the transition, how identifiers map and what must reconcile. Evaluate historical records, original files, versions and review status before deciding what to migrate; work outside the scope stays in QBench.

The LIMS blueprint describes the QC workflows in detail.