BioRender is a web-based drawing tool for scientists. Researchers use it to make the diagrams in papers, posters, grant applications and lecture slides: cells, signaling pathways, lab workflows, organs, and experimental timelines. You build a figure by dragging icons from a large built-in library onto a canvas, then arrange, label and recolor them, often starting from a template.
Its main appeal is that the icons are drawn to a consistent style, so a figure looks like it came from one illustrator, and the figures can be exported as high-resolution images or vector files for journals. The company, based in Toronto, built it around academic publishing needs, and many journals and universities have accounts through institutional licenses.
It has a free tier with limits on icons and downloads, and paid plans for individuals and labs. Plans and their terms change, so check the current options on the BioRender website before you sign up. Also check whether a journal accepts figures made with its icons, since licensing of the icons affects reuse outside the figure's original publication.
Wouldn’t you say that their business model is in danger? Now that high powered AI can pretty much create whatever graphic you need with whatever detail you need.
I'd say it's under pressure, but not in the way the question implies. The part most exposed is the quick, generic diagram: a stock cell, a basic pathway sketch, a slide graphic where nobody needs exact icons. A general image generator can make those in seconds, and a lab that only needs that will reasonably ask whether it needs a subscription.
What's harder to replace is the work a figure has to do in a paper. Reviewers and editors care whether a receptor, organelle or molecule is drawn correctly, whether the labels are legible and spelled consistently, and whether the file can be edited, reused and resized for different journals. Image generators are still weak on those points, and many journals now have explicit policies on AI-generated images, so a figure made that way can be rejected or need disclosure. The curated, style-consistent icon library and the reuse terms are also harder to copy than the drawing itself.
I haven't seen a study that measures how much BioRender's demand has shifted, so that part is an informed guess. The honest answer is that the market is likely to split: casual users may leave, while labs that publish will still need controlled, accurate, editable figures.
