Insidetx.com Versus

TAMARA vs. Precision Nanosystems Ignite for RNA-LNP Formulation

Looking for the best microfluidic-based nanoparticle or RNA-LNP formulation system?

TAMARA by Inside Therapeutics and Precision Nanosystems Ignite (now Cytiva) are both excellent options for LNP formulation. Let’s compare their key features to help you decide.

Reach out to us
TAMARA vs Spark by Cytiva for LNP Formulation

TAMARA & Precision Nanosystems Ignite comparison table

Nanoparticle/LNP formulation system TAMARA

TAMARA
Inside Therapeutics
 Ignite

Ignite
Precision Nanosystems (now Cytiva)
General
Technology Microfluidics Microfluidics
RNA-LNP & Liposome formulation ✔ ✔
PDI (Polydispersity Index) ✔ ✔
Performance
Size Control & Repeatability Full control (TFR/FRR/Vol) Full control (TFR/FRR/Vol)1
Accessible Volume Range 0.2 – 30 mL 1 – 20 mL (up to 60 mL)1
Waste (Recommended) 0 µL ≥ 300 µL (syringe dependent)1
Applications
Screening ✔ ≥ 1 mL1
In Vitro ✔ ✔ (≥ 1 mL)1
In Vivo ✔ ✔
User Experience
Ease of Use ✔ ✔
Learning Time < 30 mins < 30 mins
Average Time per Formulation < 2 mins < 2 mins
Integrated Cleaning / Chip Reusability ✔ No
Risk of Cross Contamination Low (cleanable or single use) Single use only1
Chip Cost (per chip) ~$49 / €42 (pack of 10) $64 (pack of 100)2
$48 (pack of 200)2
Learn more about TAMARA

Why Choose TAMARA Over Precision Nanosystems Ignite?

Zero Sample Loss

TAMARA ensures 0 μL loss per formulation, saving valuable reagents—perfect when working with expensive RNA or limited materials.
Ignite, by comparison, requires at least 300 μL waste.

Versatile Application:
Low to Large Volumes

TAMARA supports total formulation volumes as low as 0.2 mL and up to 30 mL, making it perfect for early-stage studies, screening, in vitro, and in vivo applications. Instead the Precision nanosystems Ignite provides a minimum total volume of 1 mL.

Cost-Effective

TAMARA’s reusable microfluidic chips significantly lower the cost per run, while Ignite LNP is only provided with disposable chips.

Why Choose Ignite Over TAMARA for LNP? 

Higher Volume Capacity

Ignite accommodates formulations up to 60 mL, making it suitable for larger-scale projects. TAMARA’s capacity maxes out at 30 mL and would thus need 2 runs instead of 1.

Still not sure which RNA-LNP formulation system to use?

Check this comment from one of the TAMARA Users

Hear from Our Users

Prof. Raymond Schiffelers

It’s only through daily use that the true value of a machine becomes apparent. When PhD students consistently gravitate toward one device while overlooking others, it speaks volumes. Tamara is in high demand—an endorsement in itself

Prof. Maria Jose Alonso

Our laboratory has been utilizing the TAMARA microfluidic device for nanoparticle preparation, which has enhanced our research capabilities. The microfluidic device offers an adequate combination of precision, scalability, and usability that sets it apart.

Dzenan Kovacic

We’ve set up TAMARA and performed our first mock run. I’m absolutely blown away by how user friendly, efficient and straight to the point this system is!

Want to try it?

Contact us

Book a demo
TAMARA vs Ignite LNP
  • Choose TAMARA if you need a system that covers all the R&D development steps, with control over your formulation conditions, and a lower cost per run. It’s perfect for researchers working with small volumes or requiring versatility across applications.
  • Choose Precision Nanosystems Ignite if you prioritize higher volume capacity and can accommodate the higher sample loss and operational costs.

    Looking for a practical example to why TAMARA is an excellent Ignite alternative?
Download our comparative Application note Ignite vs TAMARA for low volume mRNA-LNP Formulation
LNP Formulation Inside Therapeutics Contact

Looking to learn more about TAMARA?

Reach out to us to learn how we can help!