We run cell-based in vitro screens as part of our work, and the most common mistake we see from teams ordering their first screen is jumping straight to cells before the question is defined. So here is the decision logic we walk through - useful whether you outsource or run it in-house.
Biochemical vs cell-based vs in vivo:
Biochemical: fastest, cheapest, cleanest to interpret. But it only tells you about the molecular interaction, not what the compound does inside a living cell.
Cell-based: closer to real physiology. You see integrated functional effects - proliferation, apoptosis, cell-cycle shifts, pathway readouts. Slower and noisier than biochemical, but far more informative per compound.
In vivo: most physiological, highest cost, longest timeline, most variability. The wrong tool for triaging hundreds of compounds.
For early hit-series triage, cell-based is usually the sweet spot: controllable conditions, decent reproducibility, and it batches well.
What actually decides the timeline: the growth rate of the cell line you pick, the dosing scheme, and how many readouts you stack on top (cell cycle, apoptosis by flow, ELISA, Co-IP, reporter assays). That is why "how long does a screen take" has no fixed answer - the panel defines it, not the vendor.
One thing to decide before commissioning anything: what decision will this data change? If the answer is "nothing specific", the screen is not ready to be ordered.
Disclosure: I work at a contract research organization offering these services. General information only.