GLG vs. Catalant vs. Expert Networks (2026): Which Consulting Platform Is Right?

Overview

GLG (Gerson Lehrman Group) is the world’s largest expert network, built primarily around one-on-one expert calls — typically 30–60 minute phone consultations with industry specialists. Founded in 1998, it has a network of over one million experts and is the default choice for institutional investors and corporate strategy teams running primary research.

Catalant is a project-based consulting marketplace that connects enterprises with independent consultants — primarily former McKinsey, Bain, BCG, and Big Four professionals — for multi-week or multi-month engagements. Rather than a phone call, you hire a Catalant consultant the way you’d hire a contractor: scope → proposal → execution.

The core distinction: GLG is for knowledge transfer (you’re extracting insight from an expert). Catalant is for work execution (an expert is doing the project with you). This sounds simple, but it has profound implications for pricing, use cases, and which platform delivers value for your specific need.

Both platforms have grown significantly since 2020. GLG has expanded its technology products (surveys, structured data) while Catalant has deepened its enterprise procurement infrastructure. Neither is standing still — but their core models remain distinct.

Pricing & Engagement Models

Data as of June 2026. GLG pricing varies significantly by contract size and usage volume. Catalant hourly rates reflect market range across consulting specialties and seniority levels.

Expert Quality & Specialties

GLG experts span an enormous range — former executives, technical specialists, academics, physicians, government officials. The breadth is GLG’s main advantage. If you need a former FDA regulator or a recently retired semiconductor plant manager, GLG can typically source one within hours. Quality is variable: the network is vast, and expert depth ranges from genuinely elite to middling.

Catalant’s expert pool is narrower but more curated for project execution. The platform recruits former Big Three consultants, CFOs, CMOs, and functional leads who are built for delivering outputs — slide decks, financial models, strategic assessments. Catalant is less useful for highly technical domains (engineering, science, medicine) where GLG has an obvious advantage.

When GLG’s breadth wins

• Industry due diligence across an unfamiliar vertical
• Primary research to validate investment theses
• Regulatory, scientific, or technical domain expertise
• Speed: expert matched and call scheduled within 24–48 hours
• High volume of expert conversations across multiple industries simultaneously
• Compliance-sensitive research (financial services, healthcare, government)

When Catalant’s depth wins

• You need deliverables, not just insight — strategy docs, market assessments, financial models
• You want someone embedded with your team for 4–12 weeks
• Corporate development, commercial diligence, go-to-market strategy
• Projects where track record and past case studies matter more than breadth
• Functional transformation work: supply chain, HR, finance ops, digital
• Board-level presentations requiring ex-MBB brand credibility

Geographic Reach

GLG is strongest in the US, UK, and Western Europe, with growing coverage in Asia. Its financial services and institutional investor client base skews heavily American and European. For APAC-specific research, GLG’s network coverage is solid but not the market leader — platforms like Expert360 (Australia/Southeast Asia) have a deeper local presence for project work.

Catalant is primarily US-centric, with an enterprise client base concentrated in Fortune 1000 companies. Its platform language, contracting, and compliance infrastructure are built for US corporate procurement. International organizations can use Catalant, but they may find the platform optimized for US legal and compliance patterns.

If your primary need is APAC or emerging markets expertise, neither GLG nor Catalant is the best-in-class option. Consider Expert360 (APAC project consulting), AlphaSights, or regional expert networks.

Procurement & Compliance

For heavily regulated industries — finance, healthcare, government contracting — GLG’s compliance infrastructure is significantly more developed. GLG runs mandatory expert compliance training, has established protocols for wall-crossing in financial services, and is a known quantity for institutional procurement teams. A PE firm running investment diligence can use GLG with minimal additional legal review; the compliance controls are already built in.

Catalant’s compliance posture is serviceable for most corporate work but was not built for buy-side investment research. Standard NDA and IP assignment templates are available, but the compliance infrastructure is not comparable to GLG for regulated use cases. For a corporate strategy team running a market entry project, this is fine. For a hedge fund running expert calls, it’s a gap.

On the procurement side, Catalant has invested more in enterprise tooling: MSA templates, SOW management, project tracking, and procurement system integrations. GLG’s procurement model is simpler: sign the membership contract, get credits, use them. Catalant’s model requires more per-project management but gives more visibility into spend.

Verdict: Which to Choose

The honest summary: if you’re an investment firm or large enterprise running ongoing research, GLG is the market standard for a reason. If you’re running a specific project and need someone to do the work — not just talk about it — Catalant is a better fit. Many large organizations use both. The decision usually comes down to whether you need a conversation or a deliverable.

How Much Do They Actually Cost? (2026 Breakdown)

The cost comparison illustrates the structural difference: GLG requires a large upfront commitment that amortizes across high call volume. Catalant charges per project with no annual minimum, making it more accessible for organizations that need one or two strategic projects per year without ongoing research demands.

For a growth-stage company evaluating both: Catalant is almost always the more accessible entry point. For a PE firm or large corporate that needs ongoing research infrastructure, GLG’s membership model becomes cost-effective at scale.

Decision Framework: Which Should You Choose?

Frequently Asked Questions