Independent country and site intelligence behind your bid, with every assumption open to a sponsor's questions. Your feasibility lead sets the weights and owns the recommendation.
Feasibility gets the shortest timeline and carries the longest consequence. Whatever goes into the proposal becomes the number you are measured against for the life of the study.
Country strategy gets built on whatever evidence fits inside the RFP window.
The rate you propose is the rate you are measured against, and argued over in every change order.
Internal metrics show where sites performed on past studies. They cannot show which trials are competing for those patients now, or which investigators are already committed.
Indication, phase and eligibility criteria, with target enrolment and country scope where you have them. No protocol needed.
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, so questionnaires go only to sites already worth asking.
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. Your analyst sets the weights by indication, phase and protocol requirement, and the reasoning stays visible all the way into the bid defence. Nothing collapses into a number you have to defend on faith.
A Phase I oncology study is not scored like a Phase III cardiovascular trial. Your analysts set the weights and can show a sponsor exactly why, from a table rather than a spreadsheet nobody else can follow.
Lock the analysis to the bid date, and when enrolment underruns you can show the sponsor a market that changed rather than an assumption that was wrong.
A separately sourced read that stands on its own evidence, which is what makes it worth putting in front of a sponsor.
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. Open the calculation in the room and argue from evidence, with each country classed rather than scored on a spectrum.
Rates come from comparable trials: country-specific evidence where it exists, regional or global fallbacks where it does not.
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 feasibility lead still owns the recommendation and the sponsor relationship. Hyvv gives them the evidence base and the working underneath it, so the judgement stays theirs and the reasoning holds up when it is questioned.
Turn study parameters into a scored country and site view in 48 to 72 hours, so the bid team argues strategy instead of waiting on data.
Open the calculation in front of the sponsor: the comparable trials, the weights and the enrolment evidence behind the projection.
An amendment, a dropped country, enrolment underrunning. Re-run the question without restarting the 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 belongs to your sponsor. You do not have to hand it over to find out whether the method works.
One of your own completed trials, or any public study.
All of it fits in a short conversation. Nothing leaves your organisation.
Layer by layer, on a study where your team already knows how enrolment went.
If the read holds up against what you saw, we sign an NDA and work from a synopsis on a real RFP.
Priced per report, by indication and country scope, with volume terms for teams bidding regularly. No platform licence, no seat fees, no annual commitment.
We are refining the engine with a small group of CROs and sponsors 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 against a study you have already delivered. Where it matched what happened, 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, bring us a trial you have already delivered and see whether the read matches the enrolment you actually saw.