Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) vs Charles River Laboratories: CDMO Comparison

Side-by-side comparison of Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) and Charles River Laboratories on independent FDA inspections, EMA and MHRA GMP certificates, clinical-program activity, and CDMO Signal Score. Data sourced from FDA, EMA EudraGMDP, MHRA GMDP, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

Bothell, WA · Warren, NJ
Signal Score
91/100
Quality (FDA + GMP)
97/100
FDA inspections
5
— NAI / VAI / OAI
2 / 3 / 0
FDA warning letters
0
EMA GMP certificates (active)
1
MHRA GMP certificates (compliant)
1
Clinical programs (matched)
577
Capacity
Modalities
CAR-T, Cell Therapy
Newbury Park, CA · Memphis, TN · Keele, UK · Rockville, MD
Signal Score
92/100
Quality (FDA + GMP)
99/100
FDA inspections
7
— NAI / VAI / OAI
4 / 3 / 0
FDA warning letters
0
EMA GMP certificates (active)
9
MHRA GMP certificates (compliant)
2
Clinical programs (matched)
0
Capacity
Limited
Modalities
CAR-T, Cell Therapy, Gene Editing, Plasmid, AAV, Lentiviral, ADC

Key differences

  • Both maintain clean enforcement records — no FDA OAI classifications or warning letters on file for either CDMO.
  • Charles River Laboratories has materially broader EMA GMP coverage (9 active certificates vs 1) — stronger EU footprint.
  • Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) appears as a manufacturing partner on more matched clinical programs (577 vs 0) — a broader sponsor book.

On a 13-modality CDMO landscape, both Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) and Charles River Laboratories qualify as CAR-T manufacturers; Charles River Laboratories carries the higher composite Signal Score for CAR-T programs in this comparison.

What to evaluate for CAR-T programs

Both Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) and Charles River Laboratories qualify as CAR-T CDMOs. When choosing between them for CAR-T programs, weigh these four dimensions specifically — each carries through to the side-by-side scorecard above.

Vector supply

CAR-T needs a lentiviral or retroviral vector. Confirm whether the CDMO produces vector in-house or coordinates a supplier, and how that affects timelines and cost.

Autologous logistics & turnaround

Autologous CAR-T lives or dies on vein-to-vein time and chain-of-identity. Evaluate scheduling, apheresis handling, and cryo-logistics.

Closed, scalable processing

Closed and automated platforms reduce contamination risk and support parallel patient slots. Ask about cleanroom grade and concurrent-batch capacity.

Regulatory track record

Cross-check FDA 483 history and EMA/MHRA GMP coverage — both shown above and on each profile.

See all CAR-T CDMOs ranked by Signal Score →

Frequently asked: Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) vs Charles River Laboratories

Which has the stronger FDA inspection record, Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) or Charles River Laboratories?

Both Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) and Charles River Laboratories maintain clean enforcement records on file — no FDA warning letters and no OAI classifications. Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) has 5 FDA inspections on record; Charles River Laboratories has 7.

How do Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) and Charles River Laboratories compare on European GMP coverage?

Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) holds 1 active EMA GMP certificate and 1 MHRA / UK certificate. Charles River Laboratories holds 9 active EMA GMP certificates and 2 MHRA / UK certificates. Use these counts as a proxy for the breadth of each CDMO's European regulatory footprint.

Which is more active in clinical-stage manufacturing — Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) or Charles River Laboratories?

Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) is matched to 577 ClinicalTrials.gov records as a manufacturing partner; Charles River Laboratories is matched to 0. Higher counts indicate broader sponsor exposure but say nothing about approved-product track record — pair this number with each CDMO's profile page for context.

Which is better for CAR-T manufacturing — Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) or Charles River Laboratories?

Both Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) and Charles River Laboratories are tagged as CAR-T CDMOs in our directory, so both are credible options for CAR-T programs. The most important differentiator for CAR-T selection is typically vector supply: CAR-T needs a lentiviral or retroviral vector. Confirm whether the CDMO produces vector in-house or coordinates a supplier, and how that affects timelines and cost. Review each CDMO's profile and inspection record before shortlisting.

What does the Signal Score gap mean in practice?

Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) carries a Signal Score of 91/100 and Charles River Laboratories carries 92/100 — essentially tied for Charles River Laboratories. The Signal Score combines quality (FDA inspections + EMA/MHRA GMP), operational performance, financial stability, and capacity intelligence. CDMOs cannot pay to influence their score.

Evaluating Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg) and Charles River Laboratories for a program?

Use the free AI matchmaker to weigh both against your specific requirements — capacity, modality, regulatory record, geography — and surface other qualified options.

Find & compare CDMOs →
Sourced from FDA, EMA EudraGMDP, MHRA GMDP, and ClinicalTrials.gov.