Comparison
Independent GLP audit vs. internal QA self-assessment
GLP requires an independent Quality Assurance unit that audits studies — that's a regulatory requirement, not a choice. The choice is whether your own QA unit's word is enough before an inspection, or whether you bring in an outside auditor for a dry run.
| Option A | Option B | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Your QA unit audits studies, facilities, and data per your SOPs. | An external auditor — with no stake in your program — audits the same things and reports bluntly. |
| Regulatory expectation | Required. Every GLP study needs independent QA review. | Not required — but sponsor/vendor audits are expected, and inspectors notice programs that never get outside eyes. |
| Blind spots | Familiarity: your QA audits what it helped build. | None — but the auditor doesn't know your systems, so brief them well. |
| Cost | Internal staff time (the biggest GLP cost category: ~52% in one documented implementation). | Consultant day rates / scoped audit fees — plus travel. |
| Best use | Ongoing study QA and routine operations. | Pre-inspection mock audits, for-cause audits, vendor/CRO audits, and validating a new program. |
| Watch out | Assuming internal QA pass rates predict inspection outcomes. | Hiring auditors who also sell remediation — keep audit and fix separate for credibility. |
Our take
Do both: internal QA as the operating rhythm, an independent audit before every inspection and at least periodically for high-risk studies. The independent audit is cheap insurance against inspection findings — and it gives your QA unit a second opinion.
Independent directory. This comparison is editorial, written from the sourced cost data on our cost guide. No provider can pay to win a comparison.
Get quotes for your situation
One brief, competing scoped quotes from matched GLP providers.
How it works: tell us once (4 questions, 2 min) → we match licensed auditors to your size and scope → they send scoped quotes directly. Free, no obligation.