The economics of screening first.

When computational screening costs near zero, every dollar of experimental budget goes further. Here is the business case.

3,600,000×
faster than DFT
100K compounds
screened in under 5 minutes
No GPU required
single-threaded, standard hardware
Team-wide access
not priced per seat

The cost of not screening early

Most R&D teams screen late. Candidates are designed, synthesized, and tested before safety or property viability is checked computationally. The result is predictable: a significant fraction of experimental investment goes toward candidates that could have been flagged computationally months earlier.

Drug discovery

$2–5M

Typical cost to advance one compound through preclinical

~40%

of clinical failures are ADMET-related (pharmacokinetics, toxicity)

Materials discovery

6–18 months

Typical DFT campaign for 200–500 candidate compositions

$50–200K/yr

HPC cluster costs for a mid-size computational materials group

Every late-stage failure represents not just the cost of the failed experiment, but the opportunity cost of all the work that led to it. Computational pre-screening eliminates the most obvious failures before any bench time is spent.

Time to screen 100,000 compounds

Full ADMET panel: solubility, permeability, CYP inhibition, hERG, hepatotoxicity.

FluxMateria
< 5 min
ML / AI model
~30 min
DFT (Gaussian/VASP)
~6 months
Experimental assay
12+ months

DFT estimate assumes a 64-core HPC cluster running continuously. Experimental estimate assumes synthesis + assay for each compound.

Cost comparison

Annual cost for a team of 10 scientists running routine screening campaigns.

Cost element DFT suite ML platform FluxMateria
Software license $150K–300K
(per-seat pricing, 10 users)
$50K–150K
(platform + API access)
€30K
(team-wide, unlimited users)
Compute infrastructure $50K–200K
(HPC cluster or cloud GPU)
$10K–30K
(inference compute)
Included
(2,000 GPU-hours in Business plan)
Specialist FTEs 1–3 dedicated
(comp chem PhDs to run DFT)
0.5–1 dedicated
(ML engineer for retraining)
0
(no specialist needed)
Model retraining / maintenance N/A $20K–50K/yr
(data curation + retraining)
N/A
(no training data, no retraining)
Estimated annual total $200K–500K+ $80K–230K ~€30K

DFT suite costs based on published pricing for Schrödinger, BIOVIA, and VASP commercial licenses. ML platform costs based on typical SaaS pricing for cheminformatics platforms. All estimates are illustrative; actual costs vary by organization and usage.

FTE leverage

One scientist with FluxMateria can do the screening work that previously required a computational chemistry team.

Traditional approach

Computational chemist (DFT) 1–2 FTE
ML engineer (model maintenance) 0.5–1 FTE
Data scientist (curation, analysis) 0.5 FTE
IT / HPC admin 0.25 FTE
Total 2.25–3.75 FTE

With FluxMateria

Any scientist (API or web interface) 0 dedicated
ML engineer Not needed
Data curation Not needed
HPC infrastructure Not needed
Total 0 dedicated FTE

Any medicinal chemist, materials scientist, or bench researcher can run screenings directly. No computational chemistry expertise required.

Pipeline impact

Moving screening from the end of the pipeline to the beginning changes the economics of every downstream step.

10–50×

Fewer synthesis dead-ends

Pre-screen eliminates candidates with ADMET liabilities before any bench work starts.

100%

Library coverage

Screen the entire candidate space, not a curated subset. No promising candidates missed.

Day 1

Novel chemistry works

No retraining needed. New scaffolds, new compositions, new chemical spaces — all from day one.

The math

If synthesis + assay costs $5,000–$50,000 per compound, and a computational pre-screen eliminates even 10% of late-stage failures, the annual savings for a mid-size discovery program exceed the entire cost of FluxMateria by an order of magnitude. The platform pays for itself with a single avoided dead-end compound.

One platform, three domains

Traditional toolchains require separate licenses, separate infrastructure, and separate expertise for each domain.

Capability Traditional stack FluxMateria
ADMET screening Separate ML platform or vendor assays Built-in (350 mol/sec)
Materials properties VASP / Quantum ESPRESSO + HPC Built-in (1,000+ materials)
Reaction mechanisms Gaussian + specialist interpretation Built-in (100% classification accuracy)
Spectroscopy Separate spectroscopy suite Built-in (IR, NMR, UV-Vis)
Synthesis planning Separate retrosynthesis tool Built-in (29 reaction types)
Target engagement Separate docking / scoring platform Built-in (91% MoA accuracy)

Consolidating from 4–6 separate tools to one platform reduces license costs, integration effort, vendor management overhead, and the number of specialized FTEs required to operate the toolchain.

Making the case internally

If you are building a business case for your procurement or budget committee, here are the points that matter:

1

Low entry cost, high leverage

The Pilot is a one-time €10K investment with defined success criteria and a validation report. Risk is bounded. If the pilot fails the decision gate, you stop.

2

No infrastructure investment

No HPC cluster, no GPU procurement, no IT setup. SaaS delivery with API access. Time to first result: same day.

3

Team-wide access, not per-seat

The Business plan covers your entire team for €30K/year. Traditional suites charge $15K–$30K per seat. For a team of 10, that is 5–10× the cost.

4

Measurable in weeks, not quarters

The 8-week pilot produces a validation report benchmarking FluxMateria against your own data. You know whether it works before committing to an annual plan.

5

Audit-ready from day one

Deterministic outputs, append-only audit logs, full provenance tracking. Every result is traceable and reproducible for regulatory and compliance review.

Start with the pilot

€10K, 8 weeks, defined success criteria. Validate on your data before committing.

Request Pilot See Full Pricing