Catalent (Novo Holdings) vs Richter BioLogics: CDMO Comparison
Side-by-side comparison of Catalent (Novo Holdings) and Richter BioLogics 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.
Key differences
- Catalent (Novo Holdings) has FDA inspections on record (1); Richter BioLogics does not yet appear in the FDA inspection database.
- Both maintain clean enforcement records — no FDA OAI classifications or warning letters on file for either CDMO.
- Richter BioLogics holds 9 active EMA GMP certificates; Catalent (Novo Holdings) does not appear in EudraGMDP.
On a 13-modality CDMO landscape, both Catalent (Novo Holdings) and Richter BioLogics qualify as Plasmid DNA manufacturers; Richter BioLogics carries the higher composite Signal Score for Plasmid DNA programs in this comparison.
What to evaluate for Plasmid DNA programs
Both Catalent (Novo Holdings) and Richter BioLogics qualify as Plasmid DNA CDMOs. When choosing between them for Plasmid DNA programs, weigh these four dimensions specifically — each carries through to the side-by-side scorecard above.
GMP grade & purity
Confirm GMP (vs research/HQ) grade, supercoiled percentage, and residual host-cell DNA/RNA and endotoxin specs — these gate downstream vector and mRNA quality.
Fermentation scale & yield
Match fermentation scale and yield to your vector or mRNA demand. Ask about high-yield strains and whether scale-up is validated.
Lead time
Plasmid is a common critical-path bottleneck. Evaluate realistic queue and turnaround against your program timeline.
Regulatory track record
Cross-check FDA 483 history and EMA/MHRA GMP coverage — both shown above and on each profile.
Frequently asked: Catalent (Novo Holdings) vs Richter BioLogics
Which has the stronger FDA inspection record, Catalent (Novo Holdings) or Richter BioLogics?
Both Catalent (Novo Holdings) and Richter BioLogics maintain clean enforcement records on file — no FDA warning letters and no OAI classifications. Catalent (Novo Holdings) has 1 FDA inspection on record; Richter BioLogics has 0.
How do Catalent (Novo Holdings) and Richter BioLogics compare on European GMP coverage?
Catalent (Novo Holdings) holds 0 active EMA GMP certificates and 0 MHRA / UK certificates. Richter BioLogics holds 9 active EMA GMP certificates and 0 MHRA / UK certificates. Use these counts as a proxy for the breadth of each CDMO's European regulatory footprint.
Which is better for Plasmid DNA manufacturing — Catalent (Novo Holdings) or Richter BioLogics?
Both Catalent (Novo Holdings) and Richter BioLogics are tagged as Plasmid DNA CDMOs in our directory, so both are credible options for Plasmid DNA programs. The most important differentiator for Plasmid DNA selection is typically gmp grade & purity: Confirm GMP (vs research/HQ) grade, supercoiled percentage, and residual host-cell DNA/RNA and endotoxin specs — these gate downstream vector and mRNA quality. Review each CDMO's profile and inspection record before shortlisting.
What does the Signal Score gap mean in practice?
Catalent (Novo Holdings) carries a Signal Score of 75/100 and Richter BioLogics carries 83/100 — a small lead for Richter BioLogics. The Signal Score combines quality (FDA inspections + EMA/MHRA GMP), operational performance, financial stability, and capacity intelligence. CDMOs cannot pay to influence their score.
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 →