This article contrasts the different approaches to COVID-19 vaccine development adopted by Oxford University, on one hand, and Texas Children's Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine (collectively, Texas), on the other hand. Texas was praised widely in the press and academic literature for adopting an "open source" approach to vaccine development. Oxford, however, chose to license its vaccine technology to pharmaceutical manufacturer AstraZeneca and received significant public criticism as a result. Yet the Oxford vaccine reached far more individuals in developing countries than the Texas vaccine. We compare the two vaccines' experiences, drawing attention to a constellation of interrelated elements that contribute to a successful vaccine production program, including not only IP licensing, but also timing, technology transfer, and resource mobilization, all in the context of the prevailing funding environments. This comparative analysis sheds light on how the innovation ecosystem functioned during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing useful insights for policy makers and advocates as they prepare for future pandemics and other global health challenges.