LIMS for Molecular Testing: A Buyer's Guide for PCR and NGS Labs

Quick answer: A LIMS for molecular testing is a laboratory information system built for the plate-based, lineage-heavy workflows of PCR, qPCR, and NGS labs, and clinical labs usually call it a molecular LIS. It handles parent-child specimen tracking through extraction and library prep, Ct values and FASTQ files instead of scalar results, bioinformatics pipeline integration, structured variant and organism reports, and the day-to-day handoffs from accessioning to billing, for labs regulated under CLIA.

A molecular diagnostics lab runs workflows that a general clinical LIS was not designed for: plates instead of single tubes, parent-child specimens through extraction and library prep, Ct values, melt curves, and FASTQ files rather than scalar chemistry results, bioinformatics pipelines that take hours and return structured variant data, and reports that have to express which target was detected, at what level, and with what interpretation. A general LIS with a “molecular module” bolted on usually loses the lab somewhere in that workflow. A LIMS built for molecular testing treats it as the primary use case.

This guide explains what a LIMS for molecular testing actually does, how PCR and NGS share one backbone, the seven handoffs of a molecular lab’s working day, the integration points with instruments and bioinformatics, and where LIMS IQ fits.

Molecular LIMS or molecular LIS: which term applies

Evaluators searching this category hit both acronyms, frequently on the same vendor’s site, and the difference is vocabulary rather than architecture: a search for a LIMS for molecular testing and a search for a molecular LIS surface the same products. A LIMS, laboratory information management system, is the term research, translational genomics, and sequencing-core teams use, because the system’s job is managing samples, plates, and derivatives as tracked inventory moving through a multi-step process. A LIS, laboratory information system, is the clinical term, because the system’s job is producing and releasing a reportable patient result under CLIA.

Molecular sits squarely on both sides of that line. The same lab often runs validated clinical assays for patients and sequencing work that looks like a research pipeline, on the same instruments and the same plates. So the useful evaluation question is not which acronym is on the datasheet, but which workflows the platform treats as first-class:

1. Plate-based batch processing as the primary unit of work, not one tube per test.
2. Parent-child lineage through extraction, library prep, and pooling, retained to the source specimen.
3. Non-scalar instrument output: Ct values, melt curves, read-level QC, FASTQ: captured as reviewable run data.
4. Bioinformatics handoff the lab owns, with structured variant or organism calls ingested back to the accession.
5. Reagent-lot, index, and pipeline-version tracking that makes a recall or a re-analysis a query rather than a reconstruction.

A product marketed as a molecular LIMS that cannot release a CLIA-reportable result, and a clinical LIS with a molecular module that cannot hold a plate map, fail the same evaluation for the same reason. The LIS vs LIMS comparison covers where the two product categories genuinely diverge.

What a LIMS for molecular testing actually does

A LIMS for molecular testing is the operational backbone for a lab running nucleic-acid-based testing. The core capability surface:

• Specimen-to-result tracking. Accession through extraction, prep, instrument run, result interpretation, report.
• Plate and batch management. 96-well, 384-well, or custom layouts; index assignment; collision validation; locked-once-committed audit.
• Bidirectional instrument interfaces. PCR, qPCR, digital PCR, sequencers (Illumina, Oxford Nanopore, Ion Torrent), automated extraction platforms, robotic liquid handlers.
• Bioinformatics handoff. API-driven pipeline triggers; structured ingestion of VCF, BAM index, organism calls, or pathway analysis.
• Interpretive rules. Lab-owned rules that turn raw signals (Ct values, variant calls, read depth) into reportable results.
• Variant reporting. Structured per-variant records with classification (ACMG-aligned for clinical NGS), evidence, and clinical significance.
• Reagent and index lot tracking. Every batch carries its reagent lots, index set, operator, run ID, and QC outcome.
• CLIA/CAP-aligned validation and QC. Method validation, IQCP where applicable, Levey-Jennings charts, Westgard rules, batch QC review.
• Reporting. Configurable templates for syndromic panels, infectious-disease, oncology NGS, germline, and pharmacogenomics.
• Billing and downstream handoff. Demographics, insurance, and coding data captured at accessioning and carried to the ordering system and the billing platform with the released report.

When a molecular LIS handles all of the above as first-class workflows, the lab does not need to bolt on a plate-management tool, a separate batch tracker, or a manual variant-classification spreadsheet.

PCR and NGS share a backbone, not an identical workflow

One LIMS for molecular testing can support both PCR and NGS, but only if it preserves the workflow differences instead of flattening every assay into the same result-entry screen.

The shared backbone is the source accession, parent-child specimen lineage, barcoded movement, reagent and control lots, operator and instrument records, exception queues, approvals, reporting, and the audit history. Those records stay connected even when the work branches.

For PCR and qPCR, the plate or batch is the operational center. The lab assigns specimens and controls to wells, moves the plate through steps such as extraction, amplification, and detection, then reconciles the analyzer output to the committed layout. Reviewers see specimen calls in the context of control performance and instrument flags, and a repeat may apply to one specimen, a set of wells, or the full run.

For NGS, the record expands beyond a single plate. The source specimen may produce an extract, a prepared library, and a pool before the sequencing run, and the agreed pipeline output has to connect back to the correct library and source accession. A failed library, pool, or run must remain distinguishable from a failure at the source-specimen level.

This changes what to ask to see in a demo. A PCR demonstration should show plate setup, QC-well placement, result-file reconciliation, and a repeat path. An NGS demonstration should show source-to-library lineage, pooling and sequencing status, and how structured output is linked back for review. Both should end at the same questions: what is ready, what is blocked, why, and what evidence will remain after release.

Running a molecular lab day to day: the seven handoffs

A molecular workflow is not one uninterrupted test: a source specimen is aliquoted, extracted into DNA or RNA, assigned to a plate, run, reviewed against batch controls, and reported through a panel-specific template, with work moving between people, benches, instruments, and review queues at every step. The LIMS should let the laboratory answer a few operational questions without reconciling separate spreadsheets:

• Where is each specimen or derivative now?
• Which plate, well, batch, and instrument run does it belong to?
• Which reagent lots and controls were used for that run?
• Did the batch pass QC, and which exceptions still need review?
• Which results are ready to release, on hold, corrected, or awaiting follow-up?
• Has the report, and the billing data that goes with it, reached the next system?

The seven handoffs below are where those answers are either captured or lost.

1. Accession and triage the work correctly

Management starts before a plate is built. Orders arrive through an HL7 ORM interface, the client portal, or direct accessioning, and the test catalog maps the ordered assay to its specimen requirements, target set, controls, interpretive rules, and report layout. Intake captures the patient or research subject, specimen type, collection details, requested panel, priority, and client. Barcode labels carry the accession identity into the next step and keep the primary tube connected to any extraction or working aliquots. Missing information, leakage, wrong container, or insufficient quantity should route to a deficiency queue for review before the specimen reaches a plate, instead of disappearing into an informal email thread.

Lab accessioning software supports quick or batch intake, manifest verification, label printing, and exception handling. The benefit is less about faster data entry than a controlled starting point from which every later derivative, plate assignment, and result can be traced.

2. Preserve specimen lineage through extraction and preparation

Molecular testing creates a hierarchy: source specimen, primary aliquot, extracted nucleic acid, and, when applicable, prepared library or pool. Each child record should keep its relationship to the source rather than becoming a new, disconnected sample, and the plate run should retain the operator, reagent lots, instrument, and run identifiers that affected the result: the lineage that matters when a failed control invalidates a subset of wells.

That lineage serves bench execution (what material is available, where it is stored, which step comes next) and investigation (tracing a result or exception back through the derivative chain to the original accession). Barcode-driven moves and custody events track location and responsibility at each handoff. The specimen tracking software guide covers this chain-of-custody pattern in more detail.

3. Turn the queue into controlled plates and runs

Once specimens are ready, the LIMS assembles work into plates or batches: a plate view connects each accession or derivative to a well, identifies controls, and preserves the final layout used for the run (the plate map section below covers layout, index validation, and locking). For NGS, the record also follows preparation and sequencing stages without losing the source-sample relationship. This is where a LIMS for molecular testing differs from a simple inventory system; it is coordinating executable work:

1. Select eligible specimens from the pending queue.
2. Assign specimens and controls to a plate or batch.
3. Review the layout before the run is committed.
4. Send the worklist or manifest to the instrument where the interface supports it.
5. Receive results and flags against the same specimen, plate, and run identifiers.

4. Connect instruments without hiding exceptions

Instrument integration should remove duplicate transcription while preserving the review decisions the laboratory owns. Depending on the analyzer, an instrument interface can send a worklist, receive per-well results, and map QC flags or comments to the correct patient record; where a native connector is not in scope, a parsed result file does the same job, and unmatched rows land in an import exception log with the instrument, identifiers, and file name so nothing fails silently.

Automation does not mean every result passes through without review. The management layer separates normal work from exceptions (failed controls, incomplete results, instrument flags, discrepant replicates, specimens that need repeat testing) so staff work from an exception queue rather than searching every completed record.

5. Make QC part of the run, not a separate afterthought

Controls, reagent lots, operators, instruments, and review decisions should be connected to the plate or run they affected, and when QC fails the system should make the affected work visible and hold it for the lab’s configured review process. An operational QC record can include:

• reagent and control lot identifiers;
• expiration and inventory status;
• instrument run identifiers;
• control outcomes and other QC flags;
• the user and timestamp for review or override;
• a documented reason for repeat, correction, or release.

The LIMS IQ quality control module supports QC charts, batch review, multi-tier approvals, and exception reporting. The laboratory remains responsible for defining the acceptance criteria and approval workflow in its own procedures.

Worked example: follow a failed run control without losing the specimen history

Consider a PCR plate with patient specimens, a positive control, a negative control, and any other controls the validated method requires. The plate is processed, the result file returns, and one required control fails the laboratory’s acceptance criteria. The workflow should make the following sequence visible:

1. Preserve the committed layout. The original plate record still shows which specimen and control occupied each well, the processing steps completed, and the run identifiers attached to that attempt.
2. Attach the result batch to the same plate. Imported calls and flags resolve against the recorded well assignments instead of a disconnected results file that staff reconcile by hand.
3. Flag the exception in context. The reviewer sees the non-passing control alongside the work it may affect, not hidden behind otherwise normal-looking specimen calls.
4. Apply the laboratory’s procedure. The lab, not the vendor, decides whether its SOP requires a hold, repeat, rejection, or further investigation. LIMS IQ plate workflows support completing, retesting, rejecting, or flagging results while preserving the plate audit trail.
5. Record the next attempt without erasing the first. The repeat stays linked to the affected specimen and the original plate, with the reason, user, timestamp, and new plate or run reference available for review.
6. Release only after the configured review path is complete. The retained history explains why the result took a second attempt and which data supported release.

The same pattern applies at different levels in NGS: a library may need to be prepared again, a pool rebuilt, or a sequencing run followed up. The requirement is the same: preserve every attempt, identify the level at which the failure occurred, and keep the path from the final reviewed output back to the source specimen.

During a demo, ask the vendor to create the exception rather than describe it: fail or flag a control, place the affected work into the lab’s chosen disposition, create the repeat, then open the complete history from the final result. That exercise shows whether the platform manages molecular exceptions as linked workflow records or leaves staff to reconstruct them from plate exports, instrument folders, and notes.

6. Route results from review to report

After instrument results arrive, the remaining work is clinical and operational: apply the laboratory’s interpretive rules, review exceptions, trigger reflex or follow-up tests where configured, approve the result, and deliver a clear report. Rules-based reflex testing can add a confirmation, genotype, quantitative assay, or sequencing follow-up when a screening result meets the lab’s criteria, and audit logs retain who reviewed, overrode, corrected, or released the result.

The report may carry panel-specific detected or not-detected calls with resistance markers or configured comments attached, pathogen and resistance-gene content, or a structured NGS report; once approved it can be delivered through HL7 ORU, the client portal, or the patient portal while preserving the release and amendment history.

The most useful management view shows what is pending, on hold, awaiting batch review, and delivered, not just a list of completed tests. Each accession carries timestamps from accessioning through plate steps, result entry, and release, and the test catalog holds an expected turnaround time per test, so TAT and pending-sample dashboards show where a run or review queue is stalling before a committed reporting window is missed.

7. Carry clean data into billing and downstream systems

The molecular workflow is not finished when the analyzer produces a result. Reports may need to return to an ordering system, and billing needs complete demographics, insurance, and coding data; if those fields are missing at accessioning, the delay appears at the end of the process. A connected LIS passes orders and results through HL7 workflows and transmits claims-ready data to a billing platform. That does not replace the laboratory’s billing operation; it removes the need to reconstruct the case after testing is complete. The LIS billing integration guide explains the handoff from accession data to revenue-cycle systems.

Plate map management: the operational view

Plates are how molecular techs think about work. A well-built plate-map interface is non-negotiable.

The system has to support:

• Drag-and-drop layout. Specimens, controls (positive, negative, NTC), and indices arranged in a 96- or 384-well grid.
• Index collision validation. Before the plate is committed, check that no two specimens share an index that would cause demultiplexing failure.
• Capacity validation. Confirm the plate is balanced, controls are in the right wells, and the run is within instrument capacity.
• Plate locking. Once the plate is loaded onto an instrument, the layout becomes immutable. Subsequent moves require an explicit override with reason.
• Audit trail. Every plate, every well, every move captured with actor and timestamp.
• Plate-level QC linkage. Each batch’s QC record attaches to the plate as a whole, with per-well outcomes visible inline.

Per-well results from the instrument route to the correct accession based on the locked plate map. This is what makes “specimen 47 was in well G7 on plate P-2026-05-15-003” auditable two years later.

PCR and qPCR workflows

The PCR workflow is the most common molecular pattern and the most demanding on result interpretation.

The LIS captures Ct values, melt curves, and control status from the analyzer for each well. Interpretive rules (lab-owned, versioned, audit-logged) convert these into reportable results:

• Cutoff thresholds per target (Ct < N → detected, Ct ≥ N → not detected, intermediate → inconclusive).
• Control behavior (positive control must amplify within expected Ct range, negative control must not amplify, IPC checks for inhibition).
• Replicate concordance for tests run in duplicate or triplicate.
• Melt-curve QC for tests where melt analysis distinguishes true positives from amplification artifacts.

Out-of-control runs flag for re-test or invalidation. Reviewers see the underlying Ct values, melt curves (where applicable), and control status alongside the released result. The batch QC record connects to the accession-level result through the locked plate map. See the molecular reflex testing walkthrough for how the screen-to-confirmation cascade is configured and audited.

NGS workflows

NGS adds steps PCR does not have. The LIS must track each specimen through:

1. DNA / RNA extraction. Often automated; the LIS captures the extraction batch, kit lot, operator, and yield.
2. Library prep. Fragmentation, end repair, adapter ligation, indexing. Each library is a child specimen of the original extract.
3. Normalization and pooling. Libraries are quantified and pooled at equimolar ratios for sequencing.
4. Sequencer load. Pool loaded onto the instrument; run ID assigned.
5. Sequencing run. Run-level QC (Q30, cluster density, read counts) captured from the instrument.
6. Demultiplexing. Reads sorted by index back to source library.
7. Bioinformatics pipeline. Aligned reads, variant calling, annotation, filtering.
8. Review and classification. ACMG-aligned classification (for clinical NGS); evidence capture; final-report assembly.

The audit trail has to let a reviewer trace a final variant call back through the bioinformatics pipeline version, the sequencing run, the index, the pool, the library prep batch, the extraction batch, and the source specimen. That is the difference between “we sequenced something” and “we can defend this variant call to a clinician, a payer, or an inspector.”

For oncology somatic NGS, the workflow extends to tumor-normal pairing, copy-number analysis, and structural variant reporting. For germline / hereditary work, the workflow extends to ACMG/AMP-aligned classification using public evidence sources (ClinVar, gnomAD, OMIM) per the ACMG/AMP variant interpretation guidelines. For infectious-disease NGS, the workflow extends to organism identification and antimicrobial-resistance gene reporting. Culture-based microbiology (Gram stains, identification, and phenotypic susceptibility testing) runs alongside this molecular work on the same platform; see the microbiology LIS guide for the culture, AST, and antibiogram workflow.

In LIMS IQ, each specimen is tracked through extraction, library preparation, and sequencing on plate records that retain their defined workflow steps, completion comments, imported result-file batches, and the QC reagent lots assigned to control wells, so a reviewer can examine how a run was prepared and processed. The NGS LIS workflow from extraction to report walks through those steps in operational detail.

Bioinformatics integration patterns

The molecular LIS is not the bioinformatics pipeline. It is the system that triggers the pipeline, ingests the output, and presents the structured data for review.

Three integration patterns work in practice:

1. API-triggered pipeline execution. LIS makes an HTTP request to a pipeline runner (custom platform, DRAGEN, Illumina Connected Analytics, AWS HealthOmics, on-prem Nextflow / WDL runners). The pipeline runs in its own compute environment and posts results back.
2. File-drop pipeline trigger. LIS writes a manifest file and sample sheet to a watched directory. The pipeline picks it up, processes, and writes structured output (VCF, BAM index, summary) back to a directory the LIS reads.
3. Inline LIS-orchestrated pipeline. Less common; the LIS runs the pipeline as part of its own compute. Mostly seen in vendors that have built integrated NGS platforms.

In all three patterns the LIS owns the structured-data ingestion at the end (variant records, organism calls, copy-number events, structural variants) and the linkage back to the source specimen.

Reagent and index lot tracking

Molecular results depend heavily on reagent quality and index design. The LIS has to make these visible:

• Reagent lot per batch. Extraction kit, master mix, library prep kit, sequencing reagents, indices. When a lot is recalled or shows performance drift, the lab needs to identify every result that used it.
• Index set per batch. For NGS, the index set defines which combinations are valid. The LIS should validate against the set at plate-build time.
• Operator per step. Who performed each step, for accountability and CAP-defensible competency tracking.
• Instrument run identifier. Each batch references the specific instrument run, which connects to the instrument’s QC record.
• Batch QC outcome. Pass/fail with documented reason; failure routes the batch for re-test or invalidation.

A reagent-lot recall query should trace the affected specimens and results from the lot-linked batch records instead of requiring reconciliation across spreadsheets.

CLIA and CAP for molecular labs

Molecular labs operate under CLIA at the federal level, with CAP molecular pathology accreditation for most clinical molecular labs. NGS adds additional requirements for analytical and clinical validation, individualized QC plans (IQCP), and documented pipeline validation. FDA-cleared assays follow 21 CFR Part 809 IVD regulations; laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) follow the lab’s CLIA framework.

The molecular LIS supports these frameworks by providing:

• Method validation documentation tied to specific assays, versions, and runs.
• IQCP support for tests where individualized QC plans replace standard QC.
• Documented change control for assay updates, reagent changes, software updates, and pipeline-version changes.
• CAP-defensible audit trails on every result, batch, and rule change.

The LIMS IQ security and compliance page covers the platform’s broader posture; the QC LIS software page covers the QC capability surface.

One LIS for syndromic, infectious disease, oncology, germline, and pharmacogenomics

Specialty molecular programs share more workflow than they differ on. The same LIS should serve all of these without separate instances:

• Syndromic panels: respiratory (RPP), GI, STI, central nervous system. Panel-level reporting with per-organism results and overall interpretation.
• Infectious disease PCR: HIV viral load, HCV, HBV, HPV, individual pathogen tests. Quantitative results with reference ranges and trending. HPV co-testing frequently reflexes directly from cervical cytology, so the molecular result pairs back to the originating case. See the cytology LIS guide for the Pap-to-HPV reflex workflow.
• Oncology somatic NGS: tumor profiling, hotspot panels, comprehensive genomic profiling. Tumor-normal pairing, structural variants, copy number, TMB. Many of the same structural variants and copy-number changes are also read by FISH probe panels. See the cytogenetics LIS guide for probe tracking, signal scoring, and ISCN reporting alongside the molecular menu.
• Germline / hereditary: BRCA1/2, hereditary cancer panels, expanded carrier screening. ACMG/AMP-aligned classification.
• Pharmacogenomics: CYP, VKORC1, TPMT, DPYD. Structured drug-gene interaction reporting.
• Public health and outbreak response: emerging pathogen panels, ELR-bound reportable disease testing, variant surveillance. See the public health LIMS solution for the broader workflow and product surface.

What differs across these is mostly test catalog content; the underlying workflow is the same. A new assay is configured rather than coded: define targets, controls, reference ranges, interpretive logic, specimen requirements, and report layout, validate it, then activate it on the lab’s own timeline.

Respiratory panels and high-volume PCR programs

Surge-volume respiratory testing (the COVID-19 PCR programs of recent years, and the respiratory syndromic panels that replaced them) stresses the intake and delivery ends of the workflow more than the bench. The test catalog holds PCR assays and point-of-care antigen tests side by side, each with its own specimen requirements, interfaces, and interpretation rules, so mixed workloads move through one accessioning queue. Patients can pre-register and arrive with a confirmation barcode that staff scan at check-in to verify demographics and print labels, and locations, collectors, and lot numbers are recorded per specimen so a fixed lab and mobile collection points share one chain of custody. After release, reportable results route to state public health agencies through HL7 ELR with the demographics and AOE responses each jurisdiction requires, patients receive a branded email alert and view or download the official PDF through the patient portal, and positivity rates and throughput are visible per site in on-demand analytics.

What to look for when evaluating

Walk one real assay from receipt to report, including an exception case, and confirm the LIMS can show each of the following:

1. Accession intake, triage, and barcode labeling, with deficiency routing for missing information, leakage, or QNS specimens.
2. Aliquot and DNA/RNA derivative lineage back to the source accession, including library and pool records for NGS.
3. First-class plate maps. Pending-work queues, drag-and-drop layout, index validation, locked-once-committed, audit-logged.
4. Bidirectional PCR and sequencer interfaces. Worklist and result exchange with the instruments the lab actually runs, message logs for debugging, and an import exception log for unmatched rows.
5. Control, reagent-lot, and run-level QC records with exception, repeat, and approval pathways that preserve every attempt.
6. Bioinformatics integration that the lab owns. Configurable API or file-drop triggers; the lab can change pipelines without a vendor ticket.
7. Structured variant ingestion. VCF-to-accession linkage, ACMG-aligned classification capture, evidence storage, classification audit trail.
8. CLIA/CAP-defensible documentation. Validation records, change control, QC packets exportable on demand, and a complete audit trail for edits, approvals, and corrections.
9. Configurable test catalog and reporting. Configure targets, ranges, interpretations, panels, and per-program report templates without custom code, then validate each assay before activation.
10. TAT, pending-work, and volume visibility, plus billing and downstream handoffs so the report and its claim data reach the next system.

Where LIMS IQ fits

LIMS IQ is a cloud LIS with documented molecular and NGS capability areas. The platform supports:

• Reusable 96-well, 384-well, and custom plate templates with drag-and-drop editing, sample, QC, and blocked-well assignments, configurable replicates, processing steps, and an audit trail.
• Molecular instrument connections for QuantStudio, BioFire, Seegene, and Illumina, plus reusable instrument definitions and field mapping. The exact model, software version, transport, file format, and mapped fields are scoped and validated for each interface.
• Operational plate runs that place specimens by barcode scan, bulk search-and-add, or drag-and-drop with auto-advance and live free-well counts, download instrument worklists, upload supported result files, map results, QC flags, and comments, and link imported result-file batches back to the plate.
• A PCR batch review layout for plate-based run results, syndromic panel grouping, gene-to-resistance mapping on reports, and on-demand positivity and epidemiological trend analytics.
• Sample-to-report tracking through DNA or RNA extraction, library preparation, and sequencing, with API-triggered bioinformatics pipeline integration and genomic data management.
• ACMG-guideline-based variant classification tools and configurable clinical reports with variant details and interpretive content.
• Configurable test catalogs, panels, result and reflex rules, report templates, instrument records, reagent and QC lots, Levey-Jennings charts, and Westgard rule detection.
• Accessioning with quick or batch intake, manifest verification, label printing, and deficiency handling; lifecycle queues from pending through pending-approval and pending-billing; and TAT and pending-sample dashboards.
• HL7 ORM order intake and ORU result delivery, plus billing data feeds carrying demographics, insurance, ICD-10, and CPT data to revenue-cycle systems.

The detailed interface and workflow scope still depends on the lab’s assays, instruments, pipeline, and reporting procedure. Confirm those requirements in a working demo, then validate the configured handoffs and approval steps before go-live.

This is the canonical LIMS IQ page for molecular ID, PCR, and NGS laboratories; the test catalog, instrument integrations, and rules-based reflex testing feature pages cover the underlying modules, and the LIS by laboratory specialty hub lists the neighboring disciplines. This guide gives the broader buyer’s view for evaluators researching molecular LIS options.

Two editions:

• LIMS IQ Lite: a fixed-price, standardized edition for physician office labs and small clinical labs, with supported instrument and parser patterns, a configurable test catalog, rules, and standard reports. Confirm during discovery whether the assay and plate workflow fit the Lite scope.
• LIMS IQ: the full configurable platform for higher-volume, multi-site, and specialty laboratories that need custom interfaces, workflows, or report configuration.

Next steps

• Compare editions on the pricing page.
• Work through the seven day-to-day handoffs above, from accessioning to billing, with your own assay in mind.
• Structure your evaluation with the LIS Buyer’s Guide.
• See the broader clinical LIS guide for how molecular fits alongside other lab workflows.
• Cross-reference with the specimen tracking software guide for the parent-child aliquot workflow, and the biorepository LIS guide for the consent-governed sample storage that research molecular and NGS labs often need.
• Or, fastest path: request a demo and walk through your molecular workflow with our team.