Behavioral neuroscience is advancing rapidly. Researchers today demand higher resolution, markerless tracking, multi-species support, and batch processing capabilities that older systems struggle to deliver.
SMART 3.0 (developed by Panlab/Harvard Apparatus) has been a standard behavioral tracking tool for years, but it is increasingly viewed as limited by its contour-based tracking methods, lower frame rates, and manual-heavy processes.
In this article, we review the Top 5 Alternatives to SMART 3.0 for behavioral tracking in 2025—highlighting ConductVision as the leading solution for modern research needs.
#1. ConductVision (by Conduct Science)
The Clear #1 Choice for Modern Behavioral Tracking
Why ConductVision Leads:
Markerless tracking powered by AI — no tags, dyes, or stress on the animals
11 key body points tracked per subject (nose, ears, limbs, spine, tail)
Supports multi-animal tracking (4+ untagged animals) in social or free-moving paradigms
30+ frames per second high-speed data capture for detecting subtle behaviors
Multi-species support — mice, rats, zebrafish, Drosophila, birds
Seamless integration with standard mazes: Open Field, Elevated Plus Maze, Morris Water Maze, Light/Dark Box, Sociability Chambers, and more
Batch processing — analyze hundreds of hours of video simultaneously
Plug-and-play system with an intuitive interface (no coding or annotation required)
Compatible with infrared and visible light cameras for day/night testing
Best for: Labs that want powerful behavioral insights without technical barriers.
#2. SMART 3.0 (by Panlab/Harvard Apparatus)
Reliable, But Falling Behind Modern AI Standards
Strengths:
Good for traditional locomotor studies (open field, water maze)
Well-established user base in academic labs
Integrates with Panlab hardware modules
Limitations:
Contour-based tracking only (no body-point detection)
Manual calibration required for different environments
Lower frame rates (~6–8 fps)
Limited support for complex multi-animal or social interaction tasks
No built-in batch processing capabilities
Expensive for what it offers compared to modern AI-driven platforms
Best for: Labs already invested in Panlab hardware ecosystems.
#3. EthoVision XT (by Noldus Information Technology)
Highly Modular, But Complex and Costly
Strengths:
Strong maze support (Open Field, Water Maze, Social Interaction)
Optional modules for advanced analytics
Limitations:
Complex software requiring training and calibration
High price point for full feature access
Markerless tracking limited without expensive add-ons
Best for: Larger, well-funded institutions.
#4. ANY-maze (by Stoelting Co.)
Simple Zone-Based Tracking
Strengths:
Easy-to-use interface for basic zone entry tracking
Affordable for small labs
Limitations:
No body-point detection or social interaction tracking
Frame rates and tracking detail are lower compared to AI systems
Limited batch analysis capabilities
Best for: Simple, small-scale rodent behavioral assays.
#5. DeepLabCut
Powerful, But Highly Technical
Strengths:
Deep learning-based pose estimation
Highly customizable for multiple species
Limitations:
Requires manual labeling of frames and neural network training
Coding and computational expertise required
No built-in behavioral assays or turnkey paradigms
Best for: Computational labs with machine learning specialists.
Why ConductVision Is the Best Alternative to SMART 3.0
Behavioral tracking should be powerful, easy, and scalable. ConductVision offers:
True markerless AI tracking
High-speed, posture-aware, multi-animal analysis
Simple batch data handling
Full support for rodent, fish, insect, and avian models
Seamless compatibility with most major behavioral paradigms
Whether you’re studying anxiety, learning and memory, social behavior, or drug effects, ConductVision gives you the power of next-gen AI tracking—without the coding headaches.
