The Protein A Wars: Purolite Is Gaining Share (vs. Cytiva)

Research evidence excerpt

The Protein A Wars: Purolite Is Gaining Share (vs. Cytiva)

USA | Life Science Tools & Diagnostics EquityJuneResearch30, 2026

The Protein A Wars: Purolite Is Gaining Share

(vs. Cytiva)

Given interest in DHR’s bioprocess growth gap (+HSD vs. peers +DD), we

examined share dynamics in the less visible Protein A market, where we

suspected ECL gains. While Cytiva still dominates in commercial programs, our

checks point to share loss in early R&D as performance ramps, switching costs

fall, and pricing becomes more competitive. Purolite, in particular, appears to

be gaining traction, while competition from Chinese vendors looks limited to

discovery.

Background. Protein A, a bacterial-derived ligand used in chromatography resins, enables the

selective capture of mAbs from complex mixtures and serves as a foundational purification

step in bioproduction, underpinning virtually every mAb today. The category has been historically

dominated by DHR's Cytiva, with a >50-year legacy (Sephadex in 1959, Sepharose in 1970,

MabSelect in the 2000s) while peers (TMO, Merck, Purolite) remained subscale. However, COVID

was a change agent, with extended lead times at Cytiva having forced customers to qualify

alternative suppliers, accelerating dual-sourcing and broader supply chain diversification.

Channel checks... 1) global CDMO, MSAT team lead (AlphaSense). Protein A remains dominated

by Cytiva, with ongoing product upgrades supporting market leadership (MabSelect → PrismA),

but at higher price points ($13K vs. $20K+/L). That said, Purolite is now the clear #2 and gaining

share, particularly as customers move off MabSelect to lower-cost Praesto. Cytiva still leads with

new projects (65%), but Purolite has reached 20% share, with the broader trend of vendor switching