Miracle

Name: Miracle
Brand: Miracle

AI Native

Accelerate Clinical Trials with Automated Insights. Goodbye Spreadsheet Chaos, Hello Transparency & Oversight.

Est 2023|Raised $500K

LinkedIn 2K|Website|FTEs 67|HQ San Francisco, California, US

Published Sep 19, 2026

01Common complaints

The organization requires a full end-to-end clinical suite rather than an oversight/analytics layer
- If the priority is to standardize on a single EDC/CTMS/eTMF ecosystem, platforms such as Medidata or Veeva may be a more appropriate fit.
The procurement process relies heavily on public third-party review coverage
- Public third-party review coverage specific to Miracle (miracleml.com) is limited; organizations that rely primarily on Gartner Peer Insights, G2, or TrustRadius may find insufficient independent signal.
The trial ecosystem is highly bespoke and integration maintenance is expected to be continuous
- If each study has unique data structures and vendor formats, sustained integration effort could reduce the net operational benefit of an overlay dashboard.
Security requirements demand detailed, publicly documented controls
- The vendor states SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA, and GDPR alignment, but detailed documentation of advanced controls (SSO/SCIM/audit logging/data residency) is not fully documented on public pages; enterprises needing a public trust center with control mappings may require additional vendor disclosures.

Sources: security and pricing documentation. https://www.miracleml.com/security and https://www.miracleml.com/pricing

1. The organization requires a full end-to-end clinical suite rather than an oversight/analytics layer - If the priority is to standardize on a single EDC/CTMS/eTMF ecosystem, platforms such as Medidata or Veeva may be a more appropriate fit. 2. The procurement process relies heavily on public third-party review coverage - Public third-party review coverage specific to Miracle (miracleml.com) is limited; organizations that rely primarily on Gartner Peer Insights, G2, or TrustRadius may find insufficient independent signal. 3. The trial ecosystem is highly bespoke and integration maintenance is expected to be continuous - If each study has unique data structures and vendor formats, sustained integration effort could reduce the net operational benefit of an overlay dashboard. 4. Security requirements demand detailed, publicly documented controls - The vendor states SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA, and GDPR alignment, but detailed documentation of advanced controls (SSO/SCIM/audit logging/data residency) is not fully documented on public pages; enterprises needing a public trust center with control mappings may require additional vendor disclosures. Sources: security and pricing documentation. https://www.miracleml.com/security and https://www.miracleml.com/pricing

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

If an organization expects the vendor to replace an EDC/IRT/CTMS outright rather than to integrate with those systems
If strict data residency requirements are non-negotiable and the vendor cannot document region controls publicly or contractually
If the organization requires extensive third-party analyst validation or a large volume of independent peer reviews prior to purchase

Publicly observable limitations and documentation gaps

Limited independent third-party review coverage that clearly maps to the vendor’s clinical product.
Public pricing is not disclosed in dollar terms.
Public documentation does not fully enumerate advanced enterprise features (SSO/SCIM/audit logs/customer-managed keys) or data residency options; the SOC 2 Type II report is not publicly posted and must be requested.

Sources:

Pricing: https://www.miracleml.com/pricing
Security: https://www.miracleml.com/security

- Limited independent third-party review coverage that clearly maps to the vendor’s clinical product. - Public pricing is not disclosed in dollar terms. - Public documentation does not fully enumerate advanced enterprise features (SSO/SCIM/audit logs/customer-managed keys) or data residency options; the SOC 2 Type II report is not publicly posted and must be requested. Sources: - Pricing: https://www.miracleml.com/pricing - Security: https://www.miracleml.com/security

Roadmap and items not yet publicly available

The vendor references additional integrations on its roadmap and invites requests or waitlist sign-ups for some closed-beta integrations. Prospective buyers should confirm planned integration timelines and support commitments during procurement.

Source: https://www.miracleml.com/blog/announcing-miracles-integration-with-google-analytics

Scale and performance documentation

Public documentation does not specify scale limits (e.g., maximum concurrent studies, refresh rates, data volumes). Buyers should request performance and SLA documentation during technical evaluation.

Churn reasons (why customers leave)

No credible third-party churn narratives specific to Miracle were identified in the publicly available sources reviewed.

02Why they buy

Differentiators supported by available evidence

Vendor positions the product as a dashboard-oriented oversight platform that aggregates data across disparate clinical systems and presents consolidated operational metrics.
The vendor states rapid deployment timelines in some customer narratives (examples in vendor and partner materials describe onboarding and dashboard availability within days to a week in selected cases).

Sources:

Pricing and product pages: https://www.miracleml.com/pricing
Partner story (AWS): https://aws.amazon.com/startups/learn/clinical-trials-get-the-miracle-treatment

- Vendor positions the product as a dashboard-oriented oversight platform that aggregates data across disparate clinical systems and presents consolidated operational metrics. - The vendor states rapid deployment timelines in some customer narratives (examples in vendor and partner materials describe onboarding and dashboard availability within days to a week in selected cases). Sources: - Pricing and product pages: https://www.miracleml.com/pricing - Partner story (AWS): https://aws.amazon.com/startups/learn/clinical-trials-get-the-miracle-treatment

Where competitors may be stronger

Medidata and Veeva: deeper end-to-end workflow coverage and established enterprise governance
Specialized vendors (e.g., Florence eBinders): deeper ownership of specific operational workflows

Source: Competitor product pages.

03Field reports

Miracle publishes multiple case studies and customer stories in its blog and partner materials. These are vendor-authored narratives.

Vendor-published testimonials

Examples of vendor-quoted outcomes (as presented in vendor materials):

Statements of improved dashboard visibility and faster reporting cycles.
Statements describing rapid onboarding timelines (e.g., initial deployment within a short timeframe in some customer narratives).
Statements describing timeline improvements (e.g., earlier-than-planned completion of recruitment).

Critical note: These are vendor-published testimonials and case narratives. They typically do not include reproducible methodology, baseline metrics, or independent validation of the outcomes.

Source: Official vendor website and product materials

The vendor site includes multiple named testimonials from clinical leadership at publicly listed biotechs. Examples include statements from Coya Therapeutics, Mineralys Therapeutics, and Axial Therapeutics describing improved visibility, faster reporting, and timeline improvements. These are vendor-published testimonials and represent customer statements presented by the vendor. Examples of vendor-quoted outcomes (as presented in vendor materials): - Statements of improved dashboard visibility and faster reporting cycles. - Statements describing rapid onboarding timelines (e.g., initial deployment within a short timeframe in some customer narratives). - Statements describing timeline improvements (e.g., earlier-than-planned completion of recruitment). Critical note: These are vendor-published testimonials and case narratives. They typically do not include reproducible methodology, baseline metrics, or independent validation of the outcomes. Source: Official vendor website and product materials

Independent review platforms (G2 / TrustRadius / Gartner Peer Insights)

G2: There is a G2 product listing for the name “Miracle,” but the listing appears to include reviews for other companies or products with the same name that are unrelated to Miracle’s clinical-operations product. Thus G2 results in this case do not provide reliable evidence specific to Miracle.
TrustRadius: Results returned entries for unrelated products using the name “Miracle” (e.g., field service/IT products), so these results are not usable for evaluating Miracle’s clinical-operations offering.
Gartner Peer Insights: No accessible or relevant Peer Insights page for Miracle was found during the research.

- G2: There is a G2 product listing for the name “Miracle,” but the listing appears to include reviews for other companies or products with the same name that are unrelated to Miracle’s clinical-operations product. Thus G2 results in this case do not provide reliable evidence specific to Miracle. - TrustRadius: Results returned entries for unrelated products using the name “Miracle” (e.g., field service/IT products), so these results are not usable for evaluating Miracle’s clinical-operations offering. - Gartner Peer Insights: No accessible or relevant Peer Insights page for Miracle was found during the research.

Community / social (Reddit, Hacker News)

Searches did not return high-signal community threads specifically about Miracle. Results for the term “Miracle” include many unrelated topics. Limited public community discussion is typical for early-stage enterprise tools sold primarily through direct sales to regulated organizations.

Net: Public third-party review coverage specific to Miracle is limited.

Inferred reasons for vendor selection (from case studies / testimonials)

Common themes in vendor materials and case studies include:

Consolidation of data from siloed systems to reduce manual spreadsheet work
Shorter executive/board reporting cycles
Improved vendor oversight (CRO/recruitment vendors)
Near-real-time visibility across recruitment funnels and screening processes

Sources:

Official vendor case studies and partner materials
Partner/provider spotlight and startup partner program materials

Common themes in vendor materials and case studies include: - Consolidation of data from siloed systems to reduce manual spreadsheet work - Shorter executive/board reporting cycles - Improved vendor oversight (CRO/recruitment vendors) - Near-real-time visibility across recruitment funnels and screening processes Sources: - Official vendor case studies and partner materials - Partner/provider spotlight and startup partner program materials

Case Study: Axial Therapeutics (Phase II autism trial)

What’s described:

The vendor reports that manual weekly spreadsheet tracker compilation was time-consuming and that Miracle integrated with a study website, EDC, and IRT to automate views previously maintained in spreadsheets.
Vendor materials claim outcomes such as earlier-than-planned recruitment completion and operational efficiencies.

Critical evaluation / methodology gaps:

The case study is vendor-authored and does not provide a reproducible baseline (for example, exact cycle time reductions, hours saved, or an attribution model separating vendor impact from concurrent operational changes).
Statements about timeline improvement are directionally meaningful but lack detailed methodology or controls for confounding factors (site additions, protocol amendments, vendor performance changes).

Source: Official vendor blog post

What’s described: - The vendor reports that manual weekly spreadsheet tracker compilation was time-consuming and that Miracle integrated with a study website, EDC, and IRT to automate views previously maintained in spreadsheets. - Vendor materials claim outcomes such as earlier-than-planned recruitment completion and operational efficiencies. Critical evaluation / methodology gaps: - The case study is vendor-authored and does not provide a reproducible baseline (for example, exact cycle time reductions, hours saved, or an attribution model separating vendor impact from concurrent operational changes). - Statements about timeline improvement are directionally meaningful but lack detailed methodology or controls for confounding factors (site additions, protocol amendments, vendor performance changes). Source: Official vendor blog post

AWS-featured customer story (partner material)

Critical evaluation:

Partner case narratives can be informative but may present selected or best-case customer experiences; methodology and data collection details are generally not included in the public write-ups.

Source: Partner marketing page (cloud provider feature story)

Vendor and partner materials include quantified outcomes (time-savings and timeline improvements). These materials are partner-marketing stories and should be treated as vendor- or partner-provided examples rather than independent audits. Critical evaluation: - Partner case narratives can be informative but may present selected or best-case customer experiences; methodology and data collection details are generally not included in the public write-ups. Source: Partner marketing page (cloud provider feature story)

Other published case studies (availability)

The vendor lists additional case studies (Odyssey Therapeutics, Hemab Therapeutics, Dianthus Therapeutics, Vistagen, Mineralys, Inhibikase). These indicate an active content strategy and a growing customer list; however, independent verification varies by case.

Source: Official vendor case studies index

04Best fit

Company sizes

Based on public tier descriptions:

Starter: early-stage biotechs (vendor indicates very small teams)
Pro: growing teams running more complex or multi-regional studies
Enterprise: large pharma and CROs

Source: Published pricing and tier descriptions.

Best-fit industries

Clinical-stage biotech and pharmaceutical sponsors
Teams running multi-site, multi-vendor trials where operational visibility is fragmented

Sources: Vendor positioning and partner materials.

Roles and personas

Decision makers:

SVP/VP Clinical Operations, Program Management
CMO / Clinical Development leadership
Data Science / Data Management leadership (for data quality and cleaning)

End users:

Clinical operations managers, study managers, trial operations staff
Vendor oversight teams interfacing with CROs and recruitment vendors

Evidence: Titles appearing in vendor case studies and testimonials (vendor website and marketing materials).

Decision makers: - SVP/VP Clinical Operations, Program Management - CMO / Clinical Development leadership - Data Science / Data Management leadership (for data quality and cleaning) End users: - Clinical operations managers, study managers, trial operations staff - Vendor oversight teams interfacing with CROs and recruitment vendors Evidence: Titles appearing in vendor case studies and testimonials (vendor website and marketing materials).

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Existing tech stack includes multiple systems (EDC, IRT, labs, vendor reports, study website analytics)
Desire to reduce manual spreadsheet tracker maintenance
Need for near-real-time operational reporting to leadership

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Cross-system data aggregation into a unified dashboard
Near-real-time (or on-demand) syncing to track operational KPIs
Enrollment projections and scenario planning
Continuous data cleaning and data quality oversight
Safety monitoring and patient profile views

Sources: Official vendor homepage and product/feature materials; vendor customer quotes and claims.

Miracle is a B2B SaaS platform described by the vendor as a dashboard-oriented oversight platform for clinical trials. It consolidates data from multiple clinical-trial systems (e.g., EDC, IRT/RTSM, labs, safety/PV databases, recruitment vendors, study websites) into a unified, near-real-time dashboard. The vendor states the objective is to reduce reliance on manual spreadsheet trackers and to increase visibility and timeliness of operational metrics. Key functional themes documented in vendor materials include: - Cross-system data aggregation into a unified dashboard - Near-real-time (or on-demand) syncing to track operational KPIs - Enrollment projections and scenario planning - Continuous data cleaning and data quality oversight - Safety monitoring and patient profile views Sources: Official vendor homepage and product/feature materials; vendor customer quotes and claims.

Target market and positioning

Miracle’s messaging is primarily aimed at:

Clinical-stage biopharma (especially smaller teams that currently rely on spreadsheets)
Clinical Operations leadership (SVP/Head of ClinOps, PM/Program Mgmt, CMO/medical leadership)
Potentially CROs and larger pharma via an Enterprise tier

The vendor positions the product as vendor-agnostic and as a visibility/oversight layer rather than as a replacement for core systems such as EDC or CTMS.

Source: Vendor site and company positioning on accelerator profile.

Miracle’s messaging is primarily aimed at: - Clinical-stage biopharma (especially smaller teams that currently rely on spreadsheets) - Clinical Operations leadership (SVP/Head of ClinOps, PM/Program Mgmt, CMO/medical leadership) - Potentially CROs and larger pharma via an Enterprise tier The vendor positions the product as vendor-agnostic and as a visibility/oversight layer rather than as a replacement for core systems such as EDC or CTMS. Source: Vendor site and company positioning on accelerator profile.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Miracle including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →