TAMARA vs. NanoAssemblr Ignite: Alternative for LNP Formulation

Looking beyond the NanoAssemblr Ignite for LNP Research

The NanoAssemblr Ignite, developed by Precision NanoSystems (now part of Cytiva), is one of the most widely recognized microfluidic mixers for RNA-LNP formulation. Many labs adopt the NanoAssemblr Ignite to get started with lipid nanoparticles formulation, as it’s considered the industry standard.

But while the Ignite is trusted in the field, researchers often discover its limitations in volume flexibility, waste, and chip reusability. This is where TAMARA by Inside Therapeutics provides a powerful alternative, offering comparable ease-of-use with broader research possibilities.

TAMARA vs Spark by Cytiva for LNP Formulation

TAMARA & NanoAssemblr Ignite comparison table

Nanoparticle/LNP formulation system TAMARA

TAMARA
Inside Therapeutics
NanoAssemblr Ignite

NanoAssemblr Ignite
Cytiva
General
Technology Microfluidic mixing system Microfluidic mixing system
RNA-LNP formulation
PDI
Performance
Repeatability & Control Control over TFR/FRR & Total volume Control over TFR/FRR & Total volume
Volume Range 0.2 – 30 mL ~1 – 20 mL (up to 60 mL)1
Waste Volume (head & tail) 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

Why Consider TAMARA as an Alternative to NanoAssemblr Ignite?

Lower material use

TAMARA reduces waste, which is crucial when working with costly mRNA or novel lipids.

Broader flexibility:

Whether you need small-scale screening or larger in-vivo study volumes, TAMARA adapts without hardware changes.

Cost-Efficiency

Saves time and precious reagents compared to the Ignite.

Why Choose Ignite Over TAMARA for LNP? 

Larger Volume

The NanoAssemblr Ignite can handle formulations of up to 60 mL, which supports larger-scale experiments. In comparison, TAMARA has a maximum capacity of 30 mL, meaning two runs would be required to reach the same total volume.

Still deciding between RNA-LNP formulation systems?

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?

Final Thoughts: NanoAssemblr Ignite vs. TAMARA

The NanoAssemblr Ignite remains a popular system in the LNP field — but if your research requires higher flexibility, reduced waste, and lowered cost per run, TAMARA is a compelling alternative. By combining precision microfluidics with practical usability, TAMARA enables researchers to move faster from screening to in-vivo testing without being limited by scale.

LNP Formulation Inside Therapeutics Contact

Looking to learn more about TAMARA?

Reach out to us to learn how we can help!