Skip to content
antibacterial .ai

BIOVIA Discovery Studio price: what a Discovery Studio license costs, and what the free Visualizer leaves out

Dassault publishes no price for Discovery Studio, and the free Visualizer confuses the question further. Public award records put real numbers on both ends of the range.

22 September 2026 8 min read Buying

Run a screen

of 3 left

Strain panel

No account needed. 3 screens per session.

Sample output Ciprofloxacin Fluoroquinolone
Worked example, replaced when you run
Strain MIC (µg/mL) Call Resistance risk Conf.
S. aureus (MRSA) 0.5->32 R Resistant target mutation, grlA and gyrA Fluoroquinolone resistance is widespread in methicillin resistant lineages.
E. coli <=0.015-0.06 S Susceptible efflux, AcrAB-TolC in resistant isolates Potent against wild type; qnr carriage and gyrA changes shift the band sharply.
K. pneumoniae (CRE) 0.5->64 R Resistant gyrA mutation with plasmid qnr Carbapenemase producing isolates almost always carry quinolone resistance too.
A. baumannii 8->64 R Resistant efflux, AdeABC Constitutive efflux plus target changes leave little room at achievable exposure.
P. aeruginosa 0.25-2 I Intermediate efflux, MexAB-OprM Borderline: active on many isolates, lost quickly once efflux is derepressed.
E. faecium (VRE) 4->32 R Resistant target mutation, parC Enterococci are intrinsically poor fluoroquinolone targets.

Why

Ciprofloxacin is a well characterised fluoroquinolone, so the Gram-negative bands are strongly supported by published activity data. The deciding factor across this panel is not target affinity but exposure: efflux in P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii, and acquired target mutation everywhere resistance is already common. Against a modern ESKAPE panel it reads as a Gram-negative agent with two reliable losses.

Closest published analogs

  • Levofloxacin Broadly similar Gram-negative bands, better Gram-positive coverage
  • Delafloxacin Retains activity against many ciprofloxacin resistant staphylococci
Strain MIC (µg/mL) Call Resistance risk Conf.

Why

Closest published analogs

Want the rest of your series? Batch runs are on the paid tiers. screen left in this session. This session is used up.

Computational prediction from published literature. Research use only, not a lab measurement and not clinical guidance.

Dassault Systemes does not publish a price for BIOVIA Discovery Studio. What makes the question harder than it needs to be is that a piece of software called Discovery Studio really is free: the Discovery Studio Visualizer is downloadable at no cost and it is what most people meet first. The paid product that shares the name is a different order of purchase, and on the public record it runs from roughly $29,000 for a base license to $971,675 for a site license at a large organization.

Those numbers are not estimates. US federal contract awards are public, and a dozen of them name Discovery Studio directly, spanning the Accelrys years and the BIOVIA years that followed the acquisition. Here is what they show, what the free Visualizer actually includes, and how to read a reseller quote before you sign one.

How much does BIOVIA Discovery Studio cost?

A single base license lands near $29,000 to $41,000 a year on the public record. The most recent award, running from September 2025 to September 2026, is $29,196 for BIOVIA Discovery Studio software. A 2020 award for "BIOVIA Discovery Studio Base" is $41,310. Add simulation and small molecule modules and the figure moves into the $60,000 to $130,000 band, and an enterprise site license is a different conversation entirely: Accelrys was awarded $971,675 for a Discovery Studio 4.0 site license in October 2014.

Award date Sold by What it covers Amount
Oct 2014 Accelrys Discovery Studio 4.0 site license $971,675
Sep 2023 FOUR LLC (reseller) Discovery Studio perpetual license plus support $130,161
Sep 2021 FOUR LLC (reseller) Discovery Studio small molecule and simulation $99,858
Dec 2021 FOUR LLC (reseller) Discovery Studio package, perpetual $63,813
Dec 2008 Accelrys Discovery Studio software license package $60,800
Jan 2010 Accelrys Discovery Studio software package $59,200
Sep 2020 DS Government Solutions BIOVIA Discovery Studio Base $41,310
Sep 2025 Enterprise Technology Solutions BIOVIA Discovery Studio software $29,196
Aug 2013 Accelrys Annual subscription to Discovery Studio $24,999
Aug 2008 Accelrys Discovery Studio (DS Catalyst) $15,000
Aug 2008 Accelrys Discovery Studio maintenance renewal $14,819
Sep 2021 FOUR LLC (reseller) Discovery Studio small molecule module $7,433

Read that table with one caveat in mind. These are government purchases, and a commercial biotech is quoted from a different sheet. Treat the band as a floor and a shape rather than a forecast of your own number.

What the free Discovery Studio Visualizer actually includes

The Visualizer is a genuine free product and a good one. It opens and renders structures, handles sequence and structure viewing, does measurement and superposition, prepares publication figures, and plays trajectories. For reading somebody else's PDB entry or making a figure for a paper, it is all most people need, which is exactly why it is given away.

What it does not do is the work you would buy the platform for. Docking, pharmacophore modelling, molecular dynamics with CHARMm, homology modelling, QSAR, ADMET descriptors and library design all sit behind the paid license. The commercial gap matters when you are budgeting, because a colleague who says "we already have Discovery Studio" may only have the Visualizer. Checking which one is installed before you write the purchase request has saved more than one group an awkward meeting.

Why the price varies so much between awards

Discovery Studio is modular, and the modules are where the spread comes from. One 2021 award covers the small molecule module alone at $7,433, while another from the same year bundles small molecule work with simulation at $99,858. The base client is the entry ticket; simulation, pharmacophore, macromolecule design and the CHARMm engine are priced on top of it.

The second variable is perpetual against subscription. Both appear in the record: a 2013 award is explicitly an annual subscription at $24,999, while 2021 and 2023 awards are perpetual licenses, one of them bundled with support at $130,161. A perpetual license front-loads the cost and then charges maintenance each year to keep updates and support flowing, so the cheaper-looking option over three years is often the subscription, and over eight years it usually is not. Work out the horizon before you compare the two quotes.

You will probably buy through a reseller

This is the detail that surprises people, and it is plain in the record. The recent Discovery Studio awards do not go to Dassault Systemes. They go to FOUR LLC, to DS Government Solutions and to Enterprise Technology Solutions. Scientific software in this category is largely sold through channel partners, which has two practical consequences.

First, the quote you receive reflects a reseller's margin and terms as well as the vendor's list, so two quotes for the same configuration can legitimately differ. Getting a second one is normal, not rude. Second, the paperwork arrives as a multi-line quote covering base license, modules, maintenance and sometimes training, and it is worth reconciling what finally lands on the invoice against what you agreed to in the quote. If that check is still being done by hand across a stack of PDFs, the underlying job of pulling the line items off an invoice automatically has been solved well enough that it should not be eating an afternoon each quarter.

Is Discovery Studio cheaper than MOE or Schrodinger?

On like-for-like base licenses the three are closer than their reputations suggest, and all three quote on request. A Discovery Studio base license in the record sits near $29,000 to $41,000. MOE is licensed in concurrent tokens at roughly $7,250 to $11,070 per token per year, so a typical three token purchase lands around $28,750. Schrodinger's small molecule discovery suite runs materially higher in federal awards, around $198,000 to $209,000 a year, reaching $683,974 on one NIH contract.

The honest reading is that Discovery Studio and MOE compete at a similar entry point while Schrodinger sells a broader and more expensive suite. Where Discovery Studio genuinely wins is the CHARMm lineage for simulation and its integration with the wider BIOVIA and Pipeline Pilot stack, which matters a great deal if your organization already runs that stack and very little if it does not. The full token maths behind the MOE comparison is on MOE software price, and the Schrodinger side is broken down in Schrodinger software cost.

What you get for the money, and what you still will not get

A paid Discovery Studio license buys a broad structure-based toolkit. If you have a protein structure and a target you are designing against, it is a capable instrument and the price is defensible.

What it will not do is answer an antibacterial question on its own. Predicting whether a compound inhibits Acinetobacter baumannii or Klebsiella pneumoniae is not a docking problem in most AMR programs, because half the relevant targets have no usable structure and whole-cell potency depends as much on getting through the outer membrane and staying there as on binding anything. Discovery Studio can build you a QSAR model for that, but only if you arrive with a consistent MIC dataset to fit it on, which most antibacterial groups do not have. That specific gap is what QSAR software covers in detail.

A narrower purchase, if the question is narrow

Plenty of teams price a full modelling platform when the recurring question is much smaller: which compounds in this series are worth plate time, against which organisms. That answer does not need a license with modules. Paste a structure or a peptide sequence here and a predicted MIC band comes back for each organism in the panel, with an S, I or R call, the resistance mechanism expected to limit it, and a confidence level on every row. Lab is $149 a month, or $1,788 across a year, which is well under a single Discovery Studio base license.

That is not an argument against buying Discovery Studio. It is an argument for matching the width of the purchase to the width of the question. If the work is structure-based design against a validated target, buy the platform. If it is triage across a library before anything touches a plate, compound library screening software does that job directly, and the category-wide picture of who publishes prices and who does not is on drug discovery software cost.

From the note to a read-out

Screen the compound this note made you think about. Three screens per session, no account, and the full matrix every time.

Run a screen first

What you are agreeing to

  • Your compounds stay yours
  • Never used for model training
  • Deletable on request
  • No card needed to create your account

Screen your own compound.
No card required.