Top pharma companies by clinical trial failure-signal share

Sponsor rankings can be misleading if they only count total stopped trials. A large pharma company can have more stopped studies simply because it runs more studies. A smaller sponsor can look unusually risky because one or two records dominate its public footprint. This page uses a share-based view to reduce that problem.

The ranking below compares likely biological failure signals with each sponsor's stopped-trial volume. That means efficacy/futility and safety signals matter more than administrative stops, but total stopped-trial volume is still shown for context.

This is not an investment ranking, a clinical recommendation, or a statement that one sponsor is better or worse than another. It is a source-linked screening page for analysts who want to know where biological stop language appears repeatedly in public registry records.

How to read this ranking

The denominator is each sponsor's stopped-trial records in the current database. The numerator is the subset classified as likely biological failure signals, mainly efficacy/futility or safety.

A minimum record threshold is used because share rankings become noisy when sponsors have very few stopped trials. Even with a threshold, this should be treated as a starting point for source review, not as a final quality score.

Sponsor names come from registry records and may reflect subsidiaries, academic collaborators, legal entities, or historical naming. Before using the ranking in a report, open the sponsor page and inspect the underlying NCT records.