TAMARA vs Spark for LNP Formulation

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

TAMARA by Inside Therapeutics and Cytiva Spark (former Precision Nanosytems) are both excellent options. Let’s compare their key features to help you decide.

Reach out to us

TAMARA vs Spark by Cytiva for LNP Formulation

TAMARA & Spark comparison table

Nanoparticle/LNP formulation system	TAMARA Inside Therapeutics	Spark Cytiva (former Precision Nanosystems)
General
Technology	Microfluidics	Microfluidics
RNA-LNP & Liposome formulation	✔	✔
PDI (Polydispersity Index)	✔	✔
Performance
Size Control & Repeatability	Full control (TFR/FRR)	Only setpoint, no direct control of TFR/FRR¹
Accessible Volume Range	0.2 – 30 mL	0.048 – 0.48 mL¹
Sample Loss / Waste	0 µL	0 µL¹
Applications
Screening	✔	✔
In Vitro	✔	✔ (≤480 µL)¹
In Vivo	✔	Up to 480 µL¹
User Experience
Ease of Use	✔	✔
Learning Time	< 30 mins	< 30 mins
Average Time per Formulation	< 2 mins	< 2 mins
Integrated Cleaning / Chip Reusability	Yes (cleanable or single use)	No
Risk of Cross Contamination	Low (cleanable or single use)	Single use only¹
Chip cost (per chip)	~$49 / €42 (pack of 10)	~$47²

Learn more about TAMARA

Why Choose TAMARA Over Spark?

Control of Formulation Conditions

TAMARA gives you precise control over formulation parameters, including Total Flow Rate (TFR) and Flow Rate Ratio (FRR), allowing you to tailor processes exactly to your requirements. In contrast, Spark only allows you to work with preset conditions without independant control of TFR & FRR.

Versatile Application: Low to Large Volumes

TAMARA supports 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 Cytiva Spark with a maximum volume of 480µL can be limited for larger scale applications.

Cost-Effective

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

Why Choose Spark Over TAMARA?

Very Low Volume Formulation

Cytiva Spark allows for the formulation down to few 10s of µL, instead TAMARA lower capabilities is ~200µL

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

Check this comment from one of the TAMARA Users

Hear from Our Users

Full Professor at UMC Utrecht, President of Nanomedicine European Technology Platform (ETPN), Editor of IJP and JCR.

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

Professor at the University of Santiago de Compostela, Editor-in-Chief of the Drug Delivery and Translational Research,

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.

Research and development scientist in stealth biotech company

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?

Book a demo

TAMARA vs Spark: Key takeaways:

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 Spark if you prioritize <200µL formulation capabilities and can accommodate the higher operational costs.

LNP Formulation Inside Therapeutics Contact

Looking to learn more about TAMARA?

Reach out to us to learn how we can help!