GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Science ResearchTop 10 Best Research Document Management Software of 2026
Ranked comparison of Research Document Management Software for labs and regulated teams, with criteria and notes on LabArchives, Benchling, vSeven.
How we ranked these tools
Core product claims cross-referenced against official documentation, changelogs, and independent technical reviews.
Analyzed video reviews and hundreds of written evaluations to capture real-world user experiences with each tool.
AI persona simulations modeled how different user types would experience each tool across common use cases and workflows.
Final rankings reviewed and approved by our editorial team with authority to override AI-generated scores based on domain expertise.
Score: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
LabArchives
Audit logs tied to notebook and study content changes track who altered what and when.
Built for fits when regulated labs need governed notebook data and audit-ready record structure..
Benchling
Editor pickConfigurable electronic records that attach documents to sample and experiment entities with audit-tracked edits.
Built for fits when regulated teams need schema-backed records, automation, and audit-grade governance..
vSeven
Editor pickMetadata-driven workflow transitions tied to schema fields for versioned research documents.
Built for fits when research teams need metadata governance with API automation and auditability..
Related reading
Comparison Table
The comparison table contrasts research document management platforms across integration depth, data model, and automation with API surface area. It also maps admin and governance controls such as RBAC, provisioning, configuration management, and audit log coverage to show how each system supports repeatable workflows and controlled throughput. Entries are summarized to highlight tradeoffs in schema design, extensibility, and API-driven orchestration.
LabArchives
science ELNLab notebook and research documentation workspaces provide structured records for experiments with permissions, indexing, and exportable project content.
Audit logs tied to notebook and study content changes track who altered what and when.
LabArchives organizes content in a consistent schema across notebook pages, study folders, and protocol-linked records. That schema supports search and retrieval by metadata fields and document relationships, not only full-text matching. Admin controls cover RBAC and change tracking via audit logs, which is central for regulated research environments.
A key tradeoff is that deep automation depends on the available API and integration surface used by the specific lab workflow, rather than an unrestricted automation studio. LabArchives fits teams that need document governance and predictable data structure for onboarding new projects and enforcing review trails.
- +Governed research schema ties experiments to structured metadata
- +RBAC and audit logs provide traceability for regulated workflows
- +Workflow configuration through templates reduces freeform document drift
- +Attachments integrate with pages and record-level context
- –Automation depth depends on documented API and supported endpoints
- –Complex cross-system automation can require external orchestration
- –Schema rigidity can feel limiting for highly bespoke documentation formats
regulated life sciences teams
Maintain audit-ready experiment histories
Faster audit responses
clinical research coordinators
Link studies to protocol documentation
Cleaner study documentation
Show 2 more scenarios
lab operations administrators
Enforce templates across projects
Reduced documentation variance
Template-driven configuration standardizes page structure and metadata capture for new workstreams.
systems integration engineers
Automate imports and exports
Lower manual record handling
API and file-based integrations support moving artifacts between LIMS, inventory, and document workflows.
Best for: Fits when regulated labs need governed notebook data and audit-ready record structure.
More related reading
Benchling
ELN + samplesAn ELN and sample management data model stores experiment documents with governed access controls, audit trails, and extensible integrations.
Configurable electronic records that attach documents to sample and experiment entities with audit-tracked edits.
Benchling’s data model ties documents to structured entities such as samples, containers, and experimental steps so teams avoid freeform sprawl. Automation can be configured around events in those entities, which helps standardize throughput across studies with repeatable templates. The integration approach exposes an API and supports provisioning patterns that map external systems into Benchling objects with consistent identifiers.
A tradeoff is that adoption depends on careful configuration of schemas and templates, because downstream reporting and automation rely on the defined model. Benchling fits situations where governance and traceability matter, such as regulated lab workflows with controlled protocol updates. Teams also benefit most when existing lab systems integrate via API so object relationships stay synchronized.
- +Entity-linked document records enforce a structured data model
- +RBAC plus audit logs provide traceability for protocol and study changes
- +Automation can trigger from sample and experiment lifecycle events
- +API-driven extensibility supports system integration and provisioning
- –Schema and template setup require upfront configuration discipline
- –Complex workflows can increase maintenance when entities evolve
- –Integrations require careful mapping of external identifiers
Regulated R&D teams
Track protocol revisions across studies
Fewer compliance gaps
Informatics and LIMS teams
Integrate lab workflows with Benchling
Reduced manual rekeying
Show 2 more scenarios
Research operations teams
Automate standardized experimental steps
Higher throughput consistency
Trigger configuration-based automation from entity lifecycle events to enforce templates.
Laboratory data administrators
Control access and governance at scale
Tighter access control
Apply RBAC and audit logging to manage permissions by study and object type.
Best for: Fits when regulated teams need schema-backed records, automation, and audit-grade governance.
vSeven
regulated lab docsA regulated lab documentation system organizes research documents into projects and workflows with role-based access, versioning, and automated compliance records.
Metadata-driven workflow transitions tied to schema fields for versioned research documents.
vSeven supports a structured schema for research objects such as studies, protocols, versions, and associated files, rather than only folder and document storage. The automation surface centers on workflow steps tied to those schema fields, which enables configuration of review, approval, and lifecycle transitions. Integration depth is anchored in an API designed for provisioning, schema-aware reads, and programmatic updates to document records and metadata.
A tradeoff appears in setup time, because schema design and workflow configuration must be defined before high-throughput capture can rely on automation. vSeven fits teams that already standardize experiments and need API-driven integration with ELN, LIMS, or internal systems while keeping audit log coverage across edits and approvals.
- +Schema-driven data model for experiments, protocols, and versioned artifacts
- +API and automation hooks that update metadata and records programmatically
- +RBAC with audit log coverage for document lifecycle and approvals
- +Configurable workflows tied to metadata fields for repeatable governance
- –Schema and workflow configuration require upfront administration effort
- –High customization can increase maintenance of integrations and rules
Regulated lab operations teams
Run protocol approvals with full audit trails
Faster compliant review cycles
R&D informatics engineers
Integrate ELN and document records
Reduced manual documentation
Show 2 more scenarios
Knowledge management administrators
Provision projects with governed schemas
Consistent classification at scale
Admin controls standardize configuration, RBAC, and schema enforcement across new research areas.
Lab automation teams
Trigger workflows from lab events
Higher throughput approvals
Automation links metadata changes to workflow steps for review and routing without manual intervention.
Best for: Fits when research teams need metadata governance with API automation and auditability.
Dotmatics
R&D platformR&D documentation and informatics workflows structure experiments and documents with controlled vocabularies, integrations, and configurable data capture.
API-based, schema-aligned ingestion that ties documents to experiments and annotations within a governed data model.
Research Document Management Software category tools live or die by integration depth and governance controls, and Dotmatics emphasizes both. Dotmatics couples document and data workflows with structured internal data models for projects, experiments, and annotations across research artifacts.
Automation and extensibility are driven through an API surface designed for schema-aligned ingestion, workflow triggering, and interoperability with upstream systems. Admin and governance features focus on RBAC-style access segmentation and auditability for changes across managed records.
- +API-first automation for ingestion, workflow triggering, and schema-aligned data mapping
- +Structured data model for experiments, documents, and annotations with defined relationships
- +RBAC-style access controls support segmented collaboration across projects
- +Audit logging for record-level changes and traceability across document workflows
- +Extensibility supports integration with external lab and data systems
- –Deep setup can require significant configuration of data model mappings and schemas
- –Automation throughput depends on correct workflow design and API batching behavior
- –Admin governance becomes harder when many custom metadata fields are added
- –Complex document schemas can increase time to onboard new teams and projects
Best for: Fits when research organizations need schema-driven automation and governance for shared document workflows.
Wolfram System Modeler
computational recordsDocumented computational workflows can be versioned and stored alongside structured model artifacts for reproducible research pipelines.
Model-to-code and artifact generation from a structured system data model.
Wolfram System Modeler renders and validates system models that can be treated as governed research artifacts. It uses a structured data model for components, interfaces, and requirements that can be mapped into documentation and simulation workflows.
Integration centers on Wolfram Language artifacts, model-to-code generation, and repeatable project configurations for automated throughput. Automation and extensibility focus on schema-driven modeling, configuration management, and an API surface aligned with Wolfram toolchains.
- +Schema-driven model structure reduces ambiguity in research artifact representation
- +Wolfram Language integration supports reproducible generation of model outputs
- +Model-to-asset generation helps standardize documentation and experiment setup
- +Configuration controls enable consistent project provisioning across runs
- +Extensibility via Wolfram Language supports custom automation patterns
- –Governance controls depend on Wolfram ecosystem practices for RBAC and auditability
- –API coverage for document management workflows can be narrower than general DMS tools
- –Schema evolution requires careful versioning to avoid breaking existing models
- –Large model throughput can stress local compute without sandboxed execution controls
Best for: Fits when research teams need governed model-based artifacts with Wolfram Language automation.
Confluence
enterprise wikiA knowledge and documentation space model supports document templates, permissioning with RBAC, audit logs, and API-driven automation for research documentation.
Content Properties API for attaching typed metadata to pages and driving automation.
Confluence supports research documentation management with structured spaces, page hierarchies, and controlled collaboration workflows. Integration depth spans Atlassian ecosystem links and webhooks, plus a REST API for automation and content operations.
The data model centers on pages, attachments, labels, content properties, and permissions governed by Confluence RBAC. Admin and governance features include audit logging, space permissions, and configuration for user access and lifecycle controls.
- +REST API supports page, attachment, and content property automation
- +Webhook triggers enable event-driven document synchronization workflows
- +Space permissions and group-based RBAC control document access
- +Audit log records key administrative and content activity events
- –Large page trees can cause navigation overhead without strong information architecture
- –Automation via API requires schema discipline for consistent metadata
- –Granular governance often needs careful space-level permission planning
- –External integrations depend on maintaining stable app and API configurations
Best for: Fits when teams need document structure plus API-driven workflows and permission governance.
Google Drive
cloud document storeFile storage with shared drives and permissions supports research document collaboration with auditability and automation via Google APIs.
Shared drives with domain-managed permissions plus Drive API access and audit logging.
Google Drive pairs file storage with tight Google Workspace integration, which shapes its research document management data model. It supports shared drives, granular RBAC via Google Groups, and folder-level and file-level permissions for controlled collaboration.
Automation and extensibility come through the Drive API, push notifications, and Apps Script for schema-like metadata handling via properties and structured folder layouts. Admin governance relies on organization-wide policies, audit logs, and retention controls across Drive content.
- +Deep Google Workspace integration with shared drives and Gmail context
- +Drive API supports uploads, search, permissions, and metadata operations
- +Apps Script enables automation over files, folders, and metadata
- +Audit logs track access and permission changes for governance
- –No native schema enforcement beyond metadata fields and conventions
- –Automation often depends on folder structure and property discipline
- –Granular governance requires careful RBAC and group management
- –Throughput for large migrations depends on API usage patterns
Best for: Fits when research teams need governed storage with API-driven metadata automation.
M-Files
metadata DMSMetadata-driven document management organizes research records with versioning, retention controls, and workflow automation with an API surface.
Metadata schema drives application behavior through workflows, search, and classification rules.
M-Files provides research document management centered on a metadata-first data model, where classifications drive retrieval and lifecycle behavior. Its workflow engine supports automation through configurable metadata-driven actions and integrates with enterprise systems for document capture, indexing, and user access.
M-Files also exposes an API surface for extensibility, enabling custom integrations and governance workflows tied to schema and permissions. Admin controls focus on configuration, RBAC, and audit logging to maintain traceability across document and metadata changes.
- +Metadata-driven data model aligns schema to retrieval, search, and lifecycle rules
- +Workflow automation triggers on metadata changes and document state
- +API and SDK support custom integrations and governance automations
- +RBAC and permission inheritance map access to metadata objects
- +Audit log records document and metadata events for traceability
- –Schema and metadata governance require disciplined administration
- –Complex workflows can increase configuration time and operational overhead
- –Integrations may demand careful mapping between external metadata and M-Files schema
- –Granular control over indexing and search behavior can take tuning
Best for: Fits when metadata governance and API-driven integrations are required for research document lifecycles.
iManage
governed filingCase and document filing for research teams supports document governance with retention, audit trails, and workflow automation integrations.
Matter-scoped permissions and audit logging that tie document versions to authorized actions.
iManage provides research document management with end-to-end records and matter organization, tied to permissions and audit trails. The data model centers on document versions, metadata, and workflow-enabled routing for legal and compliance processes.
Integration depth comes from iManage integrations with content, email, and desktop capture surfaces plus extensibility points for workflow and services. Automation and governance depend on configurable roles, policy enforcement, and auditable actions across the repository.
- +Strong RBAC with permission checks at document and folder levels
- +Versioned documents with metadata-driven retrieval for governed research collections
- +Workflow routing supports repeatable compliance and approval steps
- +Audit log captures user actions for traceability across repository activities
- +Extensibility supports custom integration with iManage services
- –Automation depth depends on workflow configuration and integration development effort
- –Admin governance can require multiple policy and role objects to coordinate
- –API surface complexity increases when combining capture, workflow, and metadata rules
- –High customization can raise configuration drift risk across matters
Best for: Fits when legal research content needs governed storage, controlled workflow automation, and auditable access.
Atlassian Jira
work trackingIssue and attachment workflows connect research documents to structured tracking with RBAC, audit logs, and API automation.
Workflow automation with Jira Automation rules tied to issue events and transition conditions.
Atlassian Jira fits teams that need governed issue tracking tied to workflows, permissions, and integrations. Jira’s data model centers on issues, projects, and work attributes, with workflow states that drive automation rules and reporting.
Integration depth spans Atlassian products and third party apps through REST APIs, webhooks, and Marketplace extensions. Admin and governance controls include project permissions, role based access, audit logging, and configurable workflow and schema rules for consistent throughput.
- +Workflow engine with stateful transitions that automation and reporting can enforce
- +REST APIs plus webhooks for issue lifecycle integration and external tooling
- +Granular RBAC with project roles and issue level security for controlled access
- +Extensibility via Connect and Forge apps for schema and workflow integrations
- –Schema changes and workflow edits can require careful planning to avoid churn
- –Automation rule debugging is time consuming when multiple triggers interact
- –Cross instance data syncing depends on external integrations rather than native replication
- –Complex permission setups can produce confusing visibility outcomes
Best for: Fits when teams need governed issue workflows with API driven integrations and auditability.
How to Choose the Right Research Document Management Software
This guide covers research document management tools including LabArchives, Benchling, vSeven, Dotmatics, Wolfram System Modeler, Confluence, Google Drive, M-Files, iManage, and Atlassian Jira.
Coverage focuses on integration depth, data model design, automation and API surface, and admin and governance controls across regulated and non-regulated documentation workflows.
Research document management systems that store evidence with governed structure and traceable changes
Research document management software organizes research outputs like notebooks, protocols, annotations, and artifacts into a structured data model with permissions and audit trails. These systems reduce document drift by tying content to entities such as studies, samples, workflows, projects, or matters instead of treating files as isolated blobs.
Tools like LabArchives enforce governed notebook and study records with audit logs tied to notebook and study content changes. Benchling uses configurable electronic records that attach documents to sample and experiment entities with audit-tracked edits.
Evaluation criteria for governed research records with integration and governance control
The right tool depends on how content is modeled, how automation hooks into that model, and how administration controls access and change traceability. The gap between a document store and a research record system shows up in schema enforcement, audit log coverage, and how consistently metadata can be produced and consumed through APIs.
LabArchives and Benchling emphasize an entity-linked data model with RBAC plus audit logging. Dotmatics adds API-first schema-aligned ingestion that ties documents to experiments and annotations within a governed data model.
Governed data model tied to experiments, samples, protocols, or matters
LabArchives anchors experiments in governed notebook and study records tied to structured metadata. Benchling and vSeven attach documents to sample and experiment entities or metadata-driven workflows so record meaning stays consistent across revisions.
RBAC plus audit logs that track document content and metadata changes
LabArchives uses audit logs tied to notebook and study content changes to show who altered what and when. Benchling and vSeven add RBAC with audit log coverage for study objects and document lifecycle events.
API surface and automation hooks tied to record lifecycle events
Dotmatics provides API-based schema-aligned ingestion that ties documents to experiments and annotations within a governed data model. Benchling describes automation triggered from sample and experiment lifecycle events with API-driven extensibility for integration and provisioning.
Metadata-driven workflows and schema fields that control version transitions
vSeven uses metadata-driven workflow transitions tied to schema fields for versioned research documents. M-Files drives workflow automation through metadata-driven actions tied to document state and classification rules.
Typed metadata attachment and event-driven synchronization for documentation spaces
Confluence uses the Content Properties API to attach typed metadata to pages and drive automation. Confluence also offers webhook triggers for event-driven document synchronization workflows.
Integration depth through enterprise capture points and repository connectors
iManage focuses on integrations with content, email, and desktop capture surfaces, then applies permissions, routing, and auditable actions. Google Drive provides Drive API access for uploads, permissions, and metadata operations built around shared drives and Google Groups-based access control.
A decision framework for selecting a research document system with the right model, API, and governance
Start with the data model that needs to persist across collaboration and audit requirements. Then validate that the automation surface can produce or transform that same model through documented APIs and event hooks.
Finally, compare admin and governance controls for RBAC, audit log visibility, retention, and schema governance tasks needed for the way the team runs research documentation.
Map documentation objects to the tool’s entity model before choosing
Define whether the core objects are notebooks and study records, sample-linked experiments, model-based artifacts, or matter-scoped legal documents. LabArchives fits when notebook and study records must be governed as structured evidence. Benchling fits when documents must attach to sample and experiment entities with audit-tracked edits.
Validate that audit logs cover content and lifecycle events, not only access
Confirm that change history ties to document content and record objects, including who altered what and when. LabArchives ties audit logs to notebook and study content changes, which supports traceability. vSeven and Benchling provide audit log coverage for document lifecycle and study object edits.
Score automation readiness by API and event hooks tied to record lifecycle
Check whether automation triggers align to the actual lifecycle used by the workflow, such as sample lifecycle events or metadata-driven transitions. Benchling supports automation triggered from sample and experiment lifecycle events. Dotmatics emphasizes API-based schema-aligned ingestion and workflow triggering for consistent ingestion.
Assess schema and metadata governance load for the team’s operations
Determine how much upfront configuration is needed to set schema, templates, metadata fields, and workflow transitions. vSeven and Dotmatics both require configuration discipline for schema and workflow behavior. M-Files uses metadata-driven classification rules, which also demands disciplined admin governance.
Test admin controls for permissions scope and governance reporting
Validate RBAC granularity, space or matter level segmentation, and audit log visibility needed for the organization. Confluence offers space permissions and group-based RBAC with audit log records for administrative and content activity events. iManage ties matter-scoped permissions and audit logging to document versions and authorized actions.
Select integration depth based on where research content enters the system
Choose the tool that can connect to the capture and downstream systems already used by the lab. iManage connects with content, email, and desktop capture plus workflow routing for compliance. Confluence provides REST API and webhooks for content operations and synchronization.
Which teams get the most control from governed research document management
Different research organizations need different governance anchors, such as notebook records, sample-linked studies, metadata-driven workflow transitions, or matter-scoped legal artifacts. The strongest fit comes from aligning the tool’s data model and automation hooks to those anchors.
Teams that care about audit-grade traceability typically need RBAC and audit logs tied to record changes, not just file access.
Regulated labs that require audit-ready notebook and study structure
LabArchives fits regulated labs because audit logs tie to notebook and study content changes and experiments live in governed notebook and study records with controlled templates.
Regulated teams that must attach documents to samples and experiments for schema-backed automation
Benchling fits teams needing schema-backed records, automation, and audit-grade governance because documents attach to sample and experiment entities with audit-tracked edits and automation triggered by lifecycle events.
Research groups that need metadata-driven workflow transitions for versioned artifacts
vSeven fits research teams when metadata governance and API automation are required because workflow transitions are tied to schema fields for versioned research documents.
R&D organizations that run schema-driven ingestion and governance across shared workflows
Dotmatics fits organizations needing schema-driven automation and governance for shared document workflows because it emphasizes API-based schema-aligned ingestion that ties documents to experiments and annotations within a governed data model.
Teams that need workflow automation around structured tracking instead of research-record objects
Atlassian Jira fits teams that need governed issue workflows with API-driven integrations and auditability because workflow states drive automation rules and Jira Automation ties to issue events and transition conditions.
Pitfalls that break governance and automation in research document management programs
Common failures happen when the chosen system lacks a governed data model or when automation cannot reliably produce consistent metadata. Another frequent issue is underestimating the admin effort needed to maintain schema fields, templates, and workflow transitions.
These pitfalls show up across tool types, including ELN-focused systems, document repositories, and metadata-first enterprise platforms.
Choosing a file-first store without schema enforcement for regulated record meaning
Google Drive supports shared drives, Drive API metadata operations, and audit logging, but it does not enforce a governed schema beyond metadata conventions. For audit-grade record structure and controlled templates, LabArchives and Benchling better match governed research evidence needs.
Underestimating the configuration discipline needed for schema and metadata fields
Dotmatics and vSeven require upfront configuration of data model mappings, schemas, and metadata-driven workflow transitions. Confluence also needs schema discipline when using API automation and content properties for typed metadata.
Assuming audit logs cover content changes without validating the audit scope
Confluence provides audit log records for key administrative and content activity events, but it ties governance to pages, permissions, and content activity events rather than laboratory study object changes. LabArchives and Benchling tie audit visibility to notebook and study object edits for traceability.
Building automations that depend on brittle identifier mapping between systems
Benchling requires careful mapping of external identifiers when integrating with upstream systems. M-Files and Dotmatics also depend on correct metadata mappings, so identifier and classification alignment must be designed before scaling throughput.
Overloading workflow customization until admin governance becomes a maintenance burden
iManage can require coordination across multiple policy and role objects when combining capture, workflow, and metadata rules. vSeven and M-Files also increase operational overhead when many custom workflows and metadata fields are added.
How We Selected and Ranked These Tools
We evaluated LabArchives, Benchling, vSeven, Dotmatics, Wolfram System Modeler, Confluence, Google Drive, M-Files, iManage, and Atlassian Jira using features coverage, ease-of-use fit, and value suitability across governed research documentation scenarios. Features carried the most weight at 40%, while ease of use and value each accounted for 30% in the overall scoring. This editorial scoring focuses on integration depth, data model governance, automation and API surfaces, and admin controls that are described for each tool.
LabArchives separated itself with audit logs tied to notebook and study content changes, plus governed notebook and study records with RBAC and exportable project content. That audit-content linkage lifted it most on features and also improved governance usability for regulated workflows.
Frequently Asked Questions About Research Document Management Software
How do research document management tools handle schema and data models for audit-ready records?
Which tools offer an API surface for integrating lab systems and automating document capture workflows?
What approaches support single sign-on and access control for research teams?
How do these platforms preserve audit trails when documents are edited, versioned, or reclassified?
What data migration paths exist when moving existing research documents into a managed repository?
Which tools provide admin controls that limit what users can do beyond basic viewing permissions?
How do integration hooks handle event-driven automation, such as triggering workflows on document changes?
Which systems are better suited to metadata-first retrieval and classification-driven lifecycles?
When teams need structured research artifacts tied to engineering models and code generation, which option fits?
How do workflow and governance differ between research document stores and issue-based systems used to route compliance work?
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 science research, LabArchives stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Science Research alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of science research tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare science research tools→FOR SOFTWARE VENDORS
Not on this list? Let’s fix that.
Our best-of pages are how many teams discover and compare tools in this space. If you think your product belongs in this lineup, we’d like to hear from you—we’ll walk you through fit and what an editorial entry looks like.
Apply for a ListingWHAT THIS INCLUDES
Where buyers compare
Readers come to these pages to shortlist software—your product shows up in that moment, not in a random sidebar.
Editorial write-up
We describe your product in our own words and check the facts before anything goes live.
On-page brand presence
You appear in the roundup the same way as other tools we cover: name, positioning, and a clear next step for readers who want to learn more.
Kept up to date
We refresh lists on a regular rhythm so the category page stays useful as products and pricing change.