Companies that use Mastercontrol

Source: Analysis of 100 job postings that mention Mastercontrol

My analysis shows that MasterControl is primarily purchased by quality leadership, with Directors of Quality representing 29% of hiring activity, followed by Quality Assurance Managers at 18% and Quality Systems Managers at 15%. IT Directors account for 10%, reflecting the technical implementation needs. These buyers are focused on GMP compliance, regulatory readiness, and building scalable quality systems. Their strategic priorities center on preparing for FDA and international inspections, managing document control, and driving quality culture transformation across manufacturing operations.

Day-to-day users span quality assurance specialists, document control associates, manufacturing technicians, and laboratory personnel. I found them using MasterControl for batch record review, CAPA management, change control workflows, deviation tracking, SOP maintenance, and training record management. These practitioners rely on the system to ensure documentation meets ALCOA+ data integrity standards, maintain inspection-ready files, and coordinate cross-functional quality activities across production, R&D, and supply chain teams.

The pain points reveal an urgent need for audit readiness and regulatory compliance at scale. Companies repeatedly emphasize maintaining a state of audit readiness, ensuring compliance with FDA 21 CFR Part 11 and GxP regulations, and managing quality documentation that withstands regulatory scrutiny. I noticed phrases like accelerating the path to better health, enabling phase-appropriate QA support for investigational new drugs, and ensuring product quality standards are met while achieving methods for assembly process excellence. These organizations are scaling therapeutic manufacturing while maintaining stringent quality controls.

Source: Analysis of tech stacks from 462 companies that use Mastercontrol

I noticed that Mastercontrol users are overwhelmingly life sciences companies, specifically those in regulated industries like pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and medical devices. The presence of Veeva Vault and Medidata Rave alongside Mastercontrol is a dead giveaway. These companies need sophisticated quality management and compliance systems because they operate under FDA oversight and similar regulatory frameworks globally. The combination suggests businesses that must meticulously document every process, from clinical trials to manufacturing to post-market surveillance.

The pairing with Medidata Rave is particularly telling since it's the leading clinical trial management platform. Companies running clinical trials while using Mastercontrol are likely biotech or pharmaceutical firms managing the entire product lifecycle, from research through commercialization. Benchling's presence reinforces this, as it's specifically designed for R&D teams in life sciences to manage experimental data and workflows. Meanwhile, Navex One appearing frequently makes perfect sense because these companies face enormous compliance training and ethics requirements across global operations.

The full stack reveals companies operating in highly sales-led environments with long, complex buying cycles. These aren't product-led growth companies with viral adoption. Instead, they're enterprise organizations selling to other highly regulated entities or navigating government approvals. They're likely at growth or mature stages since implementing this combination of enterprise tools requires significant capital investment and organizational maturity. You don't see early-stage startups with this stack.

Source: Analysis of Linkedin bios of 462 companies that use Mastercontrol

I noticed that MasterControl's typical customers are companies that manufacture highly regulated products where safety, compliance, and quality are literally matters of life and death. These aren't software companies or service providers. They're making physical things: pharmaceutical drugs (both small molecules and biologics), medical devices (from surgical instruments to artificial hearts), biotechnology products (cell therapies, gene therapies, diagnostic tests), and medical equipment. Many are contract manufacturers (CDMOs) serving other healthcare companies.

The company sizes vary dramatically. I see early-stage biotechs with 3-4 employees alongside global giants like Thermo Fisher Scientific and Sanofi with tens of thousands. However, the sweet spot appears to be mid-sized companies (50-1,000 employees) that are commercially active but still growing. Many have reached important milestones like FDA approval, commercial manufacturing, or clinical trials, but they're not yet massive organizations. The funding stages range widely, from bootstrapped to post-IPO.