Choosing a laboratory information system is one of the more consequential decisions a pathology lab will make. The platform sits at the center of every workflow in the building, and switching it later is expensive in both time and effort. With the field shifting toward digital pathology, AI-assisted diagnosis, and SaaS delivery models, the conversation about which systems deserve a serious look has changed considerably in the last few years.
This is not a ranked list. The right LIS depends entirely on the lab in question, and the platforms covered below serve very different kinds of operations. What follows is a survey of five systems that consistently come up when pathology directors talk through their options in 2026, starting with a featured look at NovoPath and continuing through four other established names in no particular order.
NovoPath
NovoPath is a SaaS laboratory information system built specifically for anatomic, molecular, and veterinary pathology. The platform is hosted on Microsoft Azure and delivered as a cloud subscription rather than an on-premise install, which appeals to labs that want to get out of the business of maintaining their own server infrastructure.
A few characteristics that come up often in vendor evaluations:
- Purpose-built for anatomic pathology workflows from accessioning through sign-out, rather than a clinical lab system with AP modules bolted on afterward
- Native integrations with major digital pathology viewers, supporting whole slide imaging without forcing pathologists to bounce between applications
- Real-time dashboards that surface turnaround times, workloads, bottlenecks, and case statuses across the lab
- SOC 2 Type certified architecture with the security and uptime expectations that come with a managed SaaS product
- An onboarding program called NovoU that standardizes training across AP, molecular, and veterinary teams
Where NovoPath tends to fit best is independent and commercial AP labs, molecular diagnostics operations, and veterinary diagnostic networks that want pathology-first software rather than an enterprise clinical platform. It is less of a fit for hospitals that want a single LIS spanning chemistry, hematology, microbiology, blood bank, and AP under one roof, because that breadth is not what the product is designed for.
Epic Beaker
Epic Beaker is the laboratory module within the Epic ecosystem, offered in both clinical pathology (Beaker CP) and anatomic pathology (Beaker AP) configurations. It has become the default choice at large academic medical centers and integrated delivery networks that have already standardized on Epic for their EMR.
Strengths typically cited by Beaker users include:
- Tight, native integration with the rest of the Epic chart, so orders, results, and provider communication all live in the same record
- Strong support for clinical pathology disciplines, including chemistry, hematology, microbiology, and transfusion medicine
- Backed by Epic’s substantial implementation and support infrastructure
- Scalable across multi-hospital systems with shared instances and consistent build standards
The honest tradeoff is that Beaker is not designed to run as a standalone LIS. Epic deploys it only alongside the Epic EMR, which means the decision to use Beaker is essentially the decision to be an Epic shop. Some pathology groups have also noted that Beaker’s AP workflow asks pathologists to navigate multiple fields rather than work from a single report view, which is a different rhythm than what they may be used to from older AP-specific products.
Clinisys (CoPathPlus and PowerPath)
Clinisys is the parent company behind several long-standing pathology LIS products, most notably CoPathPlus and PowerPath, both of which have a deep installed base in academic and reference labs. These platforms have been around long enough that nearly every senior pathologist has touched one of them at some point in their career.
What keeps the Clinisys lineup relevant in 2026:
- Mature anatomic pathology functionality has been refined over many years of customer feedback
- Deep configurability for institutions that have built complex workflows around the system
- A broad menu of supporting modules, including molecular, cytology, and outreach
- Familiarity in the workforce, which means hiring and onboarding rarely require teaching the LIS from scratch
The flip side is that some of the underlying architecture in legacy CoPathPlus and PowerPath instances reflects design decisions made years ago. Clinisys has been actively modernizing the portfolio, and labs evaluating these products today should ask specifically about the cloud roadmap, the upgrade cadence, and how the company sees the lineup evolving over the next several years.
LigoLab
LigoLab takes a different angle than most LIS vendors by pairing its laboratory information system with a native revenue cycle management module on the same platform. The pitch is that operational and financial workflows belong together rather than being stitched across two systems with an interface in between.
Labs that gravitate toward LigoLab tend to value:
- Unified LIS and RCM data, with billing logic embedded in the lab workflow rather than handled after the fact
- Rules-based validation that flags missing demographics, coverage issues, or coding gaps upstream
- Real-time visibility into both production metrics and revenue performance from one set of dashboards
- A platform approach that keeps accessioning, technical benches, client services, and billing inside a single system of record
The audience that benefits most tends to be independent labs and pathology groups for whom billing accuracy is as operationally important as turnaround time. For hospital labs where billing is handled by a separate enterprise revenue cycle team, the integrated RCM piece carries less weight.
Orchard Harvest
Orchard Software’s Harvest LIS sits in a different niche than the others on this list. It is widely used in physician office labs, community hospitals, and mid-sized outreach operations that want a capable system without the complexity of an enterprise rollout.
Harvest tends to come up in evaluations because of:
- A reputation for relatively quick implementations compared to enterprise LIS projects
- Solid support for outreach workflows, with tools for client management and reporting
- Interfaces with a wide range of analyzers, which is often a practical concern for community labs
- A pricing structure that fits labs operating below the academic medical center scale
For high-volume reference labs or AP-heavy operations, Harvest is generally not the right tool. But for a mid-sized lab adding outreach capacity or a physician network bringing more testing in-house, it remains a credible option in 2026.
How to Make the Decision
Reading through vendor materials is useful, but it tends to flatten meaningful differences between platforms. A few questions worth bringing to any LIS evaluation:
- What does the actual day-to-day workflow look like for a pathologist or technologist using this system, and have we sat with current customers to watch them use it?
- How does the platform handle digital pathology integration today, and what is the roadmap for AI-assisted workflows over the next two to three years?
- Is the architecture truly SaaS, a hosted version of an on-premise product, or still on-premise, and what does that mean for upgrades and downtime?
- What does the implementation timeline look like, and who will own the cutover from our existing system?
- How does support work after go-live, and do the support staff actually understand pathology rather than generic IT?
The labs that get the most out of these conversations tend to come in with their own list of operational pain points and ask each vendor to demonstrate how their system would address them. Generic demos are easy to give. Specific demos, on the lab’s own data and against the lab’s own workflow, are where real differences become visible.
There is no single best LIS in healthcare, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. The five platforms covered here all have legitimate places in the market, and the right choice depends on the kind of lab you run, the systems you need to connect to, and the way you want to work three or five years from now.
