OpenBCI vs g.tec
Maker-grade open-source versus clinical-grade certified. Two fundamentally different approaches to BCI hardware. Real specs, real tradeoffs.
Pick OpenBCI if you need
Hackable, open-source hardware for prototyping and research. Best for startups, university labs, and developers who want full control over the stack without vendor lock-in or five-figure budgets.
Pick g.tec if you need
Clinical-grade certification and high channel density. Best for hospital BCI programs, FDA-regulated trials, and research groups that need IEC 60601 compliance and 256+ channels.
Comparison
| Criteria | OpenBCI Cyton | g.tec |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | Open-source prototyping, maker labs, BCI startups | Clinical trials, FDA-regulated research, hospital BCI programs |
| Channels | 8 standard, 16 with Daisy module | 16 (g.USBamp), 8-64 wireless (g.Nautilus), up to 256 (g.HIamp) |
| Electrodes | Dry comb (default), optional wet gel snap-on | g.LADYbird active/passive wet; g.SAHARA dry option on g.Nautilus |
| Sampling rate | 250 Hz | Up to 1200 Hz |
| Setup time | ~10 minutes | ~15 minutes |
| SDK stack | OpenBCI GUI, BrainFlow, LSL -- fully open-source | g.BSanalyze, g.HIsys, Simulink, MATLAB, Python API -- proprietary |
| Certifications | None (research use only) | CE, FDA 510(k) (some models), IEC 60601 |
| Pricing | ~$1,000-$2,500 | ~$15,000-$100,000+ |
| Open-source | Fully open hardware and software | Proprietary; SDK access via license |
| Tradeoff | Maximum flexibility and hackability, no clinical certification | Clinical-grade certification and signal quality, high cost and vendor lock-in |