Regulatory Intelligence · Based on 12,868 enriched FDA records

FDA 510(k) Consultants – Regulatory Consulting Firms Directory

FDA 510(k) consultants identified across 12,868 FDA 510(k) submissions spanning 1983 to 2026, with per-record enrichment available. Ranked by submission volume. Data extracted from the correspondent field of individual 510(k) records on FDA accessdata.gov — this field is not included in the FDA bulk downloadable files and requires per-record extraction. Last updated: October 7, 2026.

This is not a curated listing or marketing directory. It is a data-driven ranking of FDA 510(k) regulatory consulting activity based on real submission records from FDA accessdata.gov, enabling objective comparison of consulting firm involvement in medical device clearances.

  • Compare regulatory consulting firms by FDA 510(k) submission activity
  • Identify experienced 510(k) consultants by real clearance data
  • Filter by FDA review panel and medical device specialty

Used by regulatory affairs teams and medical device manufacturers to benchmark FDA 510(k) submission activity and consultant involvement. For FDA user fees and total submission cost data, see the FDA 510(k) submission cost guide.

723
Consulting firms
12,868
Managed submissions

Methodology: A regulatory consultant is identified when the correspondent field of a 510(k) submission differs from the applicant (device manufacturer). This covers regulatory affairs firms, contract regulatory organizations (CROs), and authorized representatives. Only firms with 3 or more submissions are listed. Some entries may represent authorized representatives rather than independent consulting firms.

This dataset is widely used to benchmark regulatory consulting activity in the medical device industry.

Data last updated: October 07, 2026

Most Active FDA 510(k) Regulatory Consulting Firms

723 firms identified across 510(k) submissions managed on behalf of medical device manufacturers. Ranked by total submission volume. · Updated October 7, 2026.

723 firms
1–50 of 723
# Firm Submissions Cleared Active panels Active since
1 1,196 100% 2003 -2026
2 559 100% 1997 -2013
3 461 100% 2014 -2026
4 321 100% 1999 -2012
5 236 100% 2014 -2024
6 221 100% 2018 -2026
7 188 100% 2014 -2026
8 174 100% 2012 -2026
9 166 100% 2019 -2026
10 149 100% 2014 -2026
11 146 100% 2014 -2026
12 143 100% 2017 -2026
13 137 100% 1999 -2013
14 131 100% 2015 -2026
15 124 100% 2007 -2020
16 123 100% 2015 -2026
17 118 100% 2018 -2026
18 117 100% 2017 -2024
19 112 100% 2014 -2026
20 109 100% 2002 -2007
21 106 100% 2015 -2023
22 105 100% 2016 -2026
23 102 100% 2015 -2025
24 101 100% 2016 -2026
25 96 100% 2015 -2026
26 92 100% 1998 -2010
27 90 100% 2000 -2005
28 87 100% 2015 -2026
29 84 100% 2014 -2026
30 81 100% 2015 -2026
31 76 100% 1997 -2002
32 74 100% 2014 -2026
33 73 100% 2022 -2026
34 67 100% 2014 -2026
35 64 100% 2014 -2026
36 60 100% 2020 -2026
37 52 100% 2015 -2025
38 50 100% 2016 -2026
39 50 100% 2014 -2025
40 49 100% 2017 -2026
41 49 100% 2015 -2025
42 49 100% 2014 -2026
43 48 100% 2020 -2026
44 47 100% 2018 -2026
45 47 100% 2014 -2018
46 46 100% 2017 -2026
47 46 100% 2019 -2026
48 45 100% 2014 -2026
49 45 100% 2015 -2024
50 44 100% 2017 -2025

About Regulatory Consultants in FDA 510(k) Submissions

Why Manufacturers Use Regulatory Consultants

Medical device manufacturers - particularly startups and international companies - frequently engage regulatory consulting firms to prepare and manage their 510(k) premarket notifications. Consultants bring expertise in predicate device selection, substantial equivalence argumentation, and FDA reviewer communications.

Of the 12,868 submissions in the 510k Database dataset where a consultant is identified, three of the ten most active firms are China-based - reflecting the volume of Chinese manufacturers seeking FDA market access.

How to Choose an FDA 510(k) Consultant

When evaluating FDA 510(k) consultants, submission volume and specialty panel experience are the most objective criteria available. The ranking on this page is based on real FDA submission records — not self-reported credentials or client testimonials.

  • Filter by FDA specialty panel — a firm with 200 submissions in Radiology is a different choice from one with 200 in Cardiovascular. Use the panel filter above to compare firms in your device category.
  • Ask for a fixed-fee proposal by phase — request a breakdown covering predicate analysis, testing gap assessment, eSTAR preparation, and FDA response handling separately. This makes it possible to compare $20k and $50k proposals directly.
  • Confirm eSTAR preparation is included — since 2022, FDA requires 510(k)s to be submitted via eSTAR (electronic submission template). Ask explicitly whether eSTAR formatting is part of the quoted fee.
  • Clarify how many FDA review cycles are covered — FDA may issue an Additional Information Request (AIR) during review. Ask whether consultant time for responding to FDA questions is included in the quoted fee.
  • Verify predicate strategy experience — weak predicate selection is one of the leading causes of 510(k) denial. Ask the consultant to walk you through their predicate search process before engaging. What is a predicate device?

For 2026 consultant fee ranges and total 510(k) budget planning, see the FDA 510(k) submission cost guide .

Data Source and Methodology

Consultant identification is based on the correspondent field extracted from individual 510(k) submission pages on FDA accessdata.fda.gov. This field is not included in the FDA downloadable flat files - it requires per-record enrichment. The 510k Database processes this enrichment as part of its data pipeline. Dataset published on Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20269611).