More About Reports & Services
To learn more about our reports and services, click on the hyperlinks below:
2009/2010 U.S. MSPPSA report on Real Time PCR Instrumentation and Reagents
248 pages, 164 graphs and tables
Published: January 29, 2010
Real-Time PCR Study Reveals Healthy Sales and New Developments
For the installed base of real-time/quantitative PCR platforms, data was obtained from responses to the following survey audit form in which we asked a cross section of over 370 randomly selected bioresearchers to itemize the real-time platforms that they have access to. Respondents specified the brands and models, the format used most frequently, instrument quantities, dates placed into service, prices paid, and the number of users for each system.
We collected details on a total of 579 real time platforms from 15 manufacturers placed in service over the past 10 years. From the year of acquisition, instrument sales continue to expand although the rate appears to have slowed over the past few years. Looking at another feature, the plate/tube format typically used, the 96-well format, continues to be the predominant type. However, researchers describe platforms using each of the seven different formats in the audit.
In addition to a detailed investigation into real time PCR platforms, reagents utilized are examined in detail. The next graph depicts the proportion of respondents preferring master mixes, kits or individual real-time PCR reagents.
The subsequent audit containing 807 entries details the supplier, type of reagent (master mix, kit or individual reagent) and associated spend by 362 current users. This reveals general trends such as the typical annual spend per supplier and type, shown next.
Examination of dollar market shares identifies major and minor suppliers for all reagents out of the 29 companies listed, as well as for each type of reagent. The next graph depicts respondents’ expenditure for individual reagents which accounts for the smallest dollar spend compared to master mixes and kits.
These are just a few of the conclusions of a new 212-page study, part of PhorTech's MSPPSA series. This series has been developed over the past 17 years to systematically measure market size, market share, growth rates, and supplier performance in key areas of bioresearch. This new dedicated report is the first of this series focused entirely on the real-time/quantitative PCR market, covering current market shares and future growth of both instrumentation and reagents.
An entire section of the report is dedicated to future purchase plans. We use this data to project future growth rates for instrument purchases. In addition to forecasting growth for each type of reagent (master mixes, kits and individual reagents), weighted average growth rates are calculated for each supplier, identifying suppliers and types which are expected to grow least and most rapidly. Over-confident suppliers will ignore these statistics at their own peril, while market-savvy suppliers will use this data to increase their market share and avoid market dead zones.
This report also covers attributes of current real-time/quantitative PCR usage. The reason for using this technique, shown below, is just one attribute measured in this study. Others include respondents’ area of research, and applications currently utilizing real-time PCR.
Respondents’ throughput of runs per week and reactions per run allows us to derive statistical values for the number of weekly real-time/quantitative PCR runs per week per respondent, and also per researcher, the reactions per run and the typical reaction volume. An audit quantifying throughput for each of 12 sources of samples and 10 different origins reveals the most common types of samples in addition to statistical values for each source or origin. The following table details the number of runs per week for each source.
Statistical Number of Real-Time PCR Runs/Week, by Source of Sample
Some of the technical aspects of real-time/quantitative PCR methodology examined in this study include chemistries, biological and technical replicates, multiplexing and types of analysis. Anticipated future usage of these characteristics identifies those likely to expand and provides a measure of the rate of expansion.
Several different aspects of customer satisfaction are measured in this study. The overall satisfaction with current real-time PCR and respondents’ willingness to adopt new approaches measured on 10-point scales reveals general attitudes towards current real-time/quantitative PCR. In addition, we asked respondents whether they would purchase the same make and model of real-time platform again today. From this input, we can calculate satisfaction rates for each major brand of instrument and discern problem areas by manufacturer. The open-ended responses to a separate more general query highlights suggested areas of improvement to real-time/quantitative PCR. Reading these comments is equivalent to spending weeks of time in the field with end-users and provides essential insight for companies in this field.
In addition, respondents were asked to rate eight manufacturers of real-time/quantitative PCR platforms for up to four factors they consider important when selecting a new instrument. This analysis shows the relative importance of the following nine factors in manufacturer selection: value for money, multiplexing capability, colleague’s recommendation, previous experience, ease of use, best technical/application support, reliable performance, consistent quality and reputation of supplier. It also identifies the highest ranked manufacturer for each.
These ratings are invaluable both for manufacturers to measure their own performance as well as to discover areas of weakness for their major competitors that can be used to obtain competitive advantage.
report is undoubtedly the most comprehensive analysis of the current market for
real-time/quantitative PCR instrumentation and reagents in
Companies Mentioned in This Report
To obtain more information or to ask about our forthcoming companion report on DNA amplification instruments, reagents, and methodology, contact Michael Eby at PhorTech International, +1 (650) 594-0785, or point your Web browser to www.phortech.com. A detailed summary of the report including table of contents and list of tables and graphs, as well as the methodology and project objectives, the survey demographics, and a copy of the survey questionnaire can be downloaded from the site at no charge.