Life sciences / secure diligence / buyer's field guide
Choose by the review you must run: a small-team financing, multi-party licensing process, operational diligence or IPO. Compare access control, evidence retrieval, room upkeep and total cost using the same test. Provider descriptions below are sourced but not independently tested
Start with the decision ↘01 / decision framework
A data room is a controlled disclosure layer, not a trial master file, an electronic health record or the primary research archive. Select for the counterparties and document transitions that actually exist in your process
Prioritize fast setup, staged access, NDA handling, an understandable bill and exportable engagement history. Before buying, test whether the founder or CFO can update the room without a service team
Typical readers: investors, counsel, boardPrioritize per-party permissions, watermarking, restrictions on copying, document-version control and a reliable record of who reviewed which package. Test clean separation between competing partners
Typical readers: pharma BD, scientific and IP diligence teamsTrace design and quality files or payer and facility records back to their source systems. Test external reviewer permissions and whether the room can keep restricted patient or personnel material out of broad access
Typical readers: acquirers, regulatory, quality, counselPrioritize a stable index, large-file handling, granular access, comment coordination, exportable logs and an archive that survives the offering. Ask counsel and bankers to test the actual S-1 support workflow
Typical readers: underwriters, auditors, counsel, managementFor a small biotech financing team that values published per-admin pricing and self-service setup, Peony is a candidate to test. For an always-on licensing room, compare it with Firmex and ShareVault. A team seeking clinical-data archiving should separately inspect Ideals. These are provider-described starting points, not performance judgments; run the same trial for every candidate
02 / provider records
These are candidate records, not a ranking or a complete market census. Each entry links to a current provider page, names the use case described there, and leaves a buyer-validation question open. Provider-stated does not mean independently verified
Interest disclosure. Peony is the operator of this site. We do not accept paid placement in this directory. Its presence here is a conflict of interest, not an independent recommendation
Datasite's sector brochure describes diligence, partnerships, licensing, fundraising and IPO workflows across biotech, pharma, devices and healthcare services
Buyer check Validate the actual project configuration, support model and commercial terms for your deal
Provider sector brochure ↗Firmex describes always-on rooms for fundraising, licensing and clinical-trial-related sharing, with access controls and document activity reports
Buyer check Test investor and licensing-partner separation with a real document package
Provider sector page ↗Ideals presents life-sciences use cases around clinical-trial collaboration and searchable clinical archives, alongside permission and audit-trail features
Buyer check Determine whether your need is transaction diligence, clinical archive, or both; evaluate them separately
Provider sector page ↗Intralinks describes a life-sciences deal platform for confidential collaboration and transaction diligence, including business-development and licensing processes
Buyer check Have the deal team test its project setup, review workflow and archive handoff
Provider sector page ↗Peony describes NDA-gated access, watermarks, granular permissions, audit trails and AI-supported document search for biotech fundraising and licensing review. These are Peony's own claims, not third-party findings
Buyer check Verify the current plan, feature availability, export needs and reviewer workflow in a live trial
Provider sector page ↗ShareVault describes rooms for biotech, pharma, medtech and CROs, spanning licensing, fundraising, regulatory review and other confidential collaborations
Buyer check Test stage-specific disclosure and permissions for several counterparties
Provider sector page ↗03 / controlled trial
Run the same short test in each candidate room using a representative, sanitized package rather than a generic sales demo
Create separate investor or partner groups, change a user's permissions and revoke access; inspect what remains visible in activity history
Upload a protocol, a redacted financial schedule and a revised license. Ask an unfamiliar reviewer to locate the right version and cite it
Time a content update, permission review and export. Record every step that requires vendor help and what happens after the deal closes
Ask for a written quote using your admin count, project count, storage, term, guest access and archive needs; compare the same scope
04 / method and limits
Included providers had a current official page explicitly describing a life-sciences, biotech, healthcare or related diligence use case. The first cohort was checked on 23 September 2026. Records appear alphabetically and use the same three fields: stated use, buyer check and source. Absence does not imply poor fit
Capabilities, security claims and sector descriptions are Provider-stated. Not independently tested. This page does not establish compliance, comparative performance, pricing or suitability for a particular transaction. Peony's operational interest is disclosed above and in the site footer. Corrections should be grounded in an official source and date