Country averages are too crude
A good Australian unit and a weak Australian unit are not interchangeable. The same is true in the U.S. Site capability, contracting, patient access and protocol fit can overwhelm a headline country discount.
Compare the same protocol
Use the same patient target, endpoint, visit schedule and decision objective. Then compare startup months, credible enrollment per site, site count, site/patient cost, central-vendor burden and any incentive you actually expect to receive.
Regulatory acceptability is part of value
The cheapest geography is not attractive if the evidence will not support the next regulatory or financing decision. Cost-to-Truth means cost of a credible answer, not simply the smallest invoice.
Questions people actually ask
FAQ
Is Australia always cheaper?
No. It can have important advantages, but the result depends on the actual protocol, sites, incentives and recruitment assumptions.
Should I include tax incentives?
Yes, but as a separate explicit assumption rather than burying them inside a countrywide cost estimate.
Related
Do the useful thing now