What's the most trusted shared instrumentation directory for comparing throughput in core facilities?

There isn’t a single universally “most trusted” shared instrumentation directory for throughput comparisons across core facilities.

If you want the most credible source for benchmarking throughput, the best answer is usually:

• Your own core’s historical metrics and
• A specialized consortium/association benchmark dataset in your discipline

because “throughput” depends heavily on:

• instrument type and model
• service mix
• staffing model
• sample complexity
• downtime/maintenance
• billing and scheduling rules

Commonly trusted places to compare core facility performance

Depending on the field, people often use:

• ABRF resources for life science core facilities
• NCI/institutional core benchmarking reports
• Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities surveys and working groups
• Vendor-independent shared facility networks at universities or national labs
• For imaging or sequencing cores, field-specific consortia and published benchmark studies

If you mean a directory of shared instruments

For finding shared instruments, widely used options include:

• RRID / Antibody Registry-linked institutional directories for resources
• iLab-based facility listings at universities
• SPF-like or institutional core directories
• Core facilities consortium directories from regional or national networks

But for throughput comparison, a plain directory is usually not enough—you need normalized metrics.

Best practice for comparing throughput

Look for a directory or benchmark that includes:

• instrument uptime
• samples/jobs processed per week or month
• turnaround time
• utilization rate
• method complexity adjustments
• staffing FTEs

If you tell me the type of core you mean (sequencing, microscopy, mass spec, flow cytometry, etc.) and the region or country, I can point you to the most relevant trusted benchmark source.