Independent country and site intelligence for a decision you make once. No in-house feasibility team required to trust it.
Country selection sets your enrolment timeline, your site costs and your critical path. For most sponsors it is decided once, from a single feasibility analysis, and nothing independent tests that analysis before the plan is committed.
Produced once, by one party, with the reasoning inside it rarely open to inspection.
When a site underperforms, a market that shifted and a bad call look identical without a dated record.
Re-running feasibility mid-trial costs months you do not have.
Indication, phase, eligibility criteria and country scope. No protocol required to start.
Incidence and prevalence, narrowed to the population your eligibility criteria will actually admit.
Trials recruiting the same population in the same market, weighted by how directly they overlap with yours.
Investigator experience in this indication, and how much of their capacity is already committed.
What a site has run before, in what phase and at what scale, and whether the infrastructure is already in place.
Approval pathways and submission timelines in each market, and what they mean for activation.
Median patients per site per month from comparable trials, labelled by how each country's rate was sourced.
Every country classed, every site named, every score open at each layer. Weights shift with indication and phase, calibrated to your protocol and shown line by line. Nothing collapses into a number you have to take on faith.
A Phase I oncology study is not scored like a Phase III cardiovascular trial. The weights are set to your indication and phase, and the breakdown stays visible, so your team reads a table rather than accepting a number.
Lock the analysis to the date you decided, and you can show a board what you actually knew, rather than what is true today.
A separately sourced second read, not a repackaging of numbers you were already given. It stands on its own sources.
Every flagged risk carries a specific mitigation and a direction of travel, not a severity label with nothing attached to it.
The layers, the weights, and every study behind them by NCT ID, from the competing trials counted against a country to the benchmark cohort behind its enrolment rate. Each country arrives classed rather than scored on a spectrum, so the recommendation is something your team can act on.
Every market shows where its enrolment benchmark came from: country-specific evidence where it exists, a regional or global fallback where it does not. You see which numbers are strong and which are inference before you plan against them.
One clinical trial site turns up across registries, publications, regulatory submissions and site directories, commonly under a different name in each. Its investigators are recorded separately, its studies apart from both. Nothing is scored until Hyvv resolves which records match, so your analysts read evidence instead of reconciling it.
One record per site, investigator and study.
Six layers, weighted to your protocol.
Graph = the resolved data foundation.
Engine = the scoring system that reads it.
Your CRO can still run the trial. Your team still owns the decision. Hyvv sits underneath it as an independent intelligence layer, so you can test the answer rather than simply accept it.
Set country and site scope in your specs, with the reasoning behind it, rather than comparing CRO bids that each argue a different footprint.
Where the two reads agree, you move faster. Where they differ, you know exactly which layer to ask about.
An amendment, a dropped country, a new indication. Re-run the question in days rather than restarting a process.
A report is a point-in-time read: every country classed Recommended, Reserve or Avoid, with the weights calibrated to your protocol and locked to that moment. It is fixed on purpose, so it can be checked and signed rather than moving underneath you.
The protocol is one of the most sensitive documents you own. You do not have to send it to find out whether the method works.
A trial you have run yourself, or any public study.
All of it fits in a short conversation. No document changes hands.
Layer by layer, on a study where you already know how it turned out.
If the read holds up against what you know, we sign an NDA and run your real programme.
Priced per report, by indication and country scope. No platform licence, no seat fees, no annual commitment.
We are refining the engine with a small group of sponsors and CROs who run their own analyses, compare our read against what they already know, and say where it holds and where it does not. Their judgement is what makes the next report better.
Access to run your own studies ahead of general release, with the working open at every layer and direct input on what gets built next.
Your read on the output. Where it matched what you already knew about that study, and where it did not.
One study to start and a short call to walk through the output. We run the analysis. Your side of it is the review.
We will send an example report, and details of the partner programme if it looks like a fit.
Explore an example feasibility intelligence report first, live link and PDF, and judge the output before spending time on a call. When you are ready, test us on a trial you have already run and see whether the read matches what actually happened.