Almost every brand that approaches a contract manufacturer has a reference in mind. Sometimes it is a competitor's product the brand admires, sometimes it is a product the brand already sells and wants reproduced in a new pack, and sometimes it is a product the brand owns but whose formula it does not hold.
The request is usually phrased as a request for a match, and it means different things in each of those cases. One is legitimate benchmarking, one is entirely proper, and one may be a request to reproduce a formula the brand has no right to. A manufacturer has to distinguish between them, and a brand should understand the distinction before it writes the brief.
This guide explains what can legitimately be matched, what cannot, the legal framework that governs the question, how a benchmarking project actually runs, and when bespoke development is the better route.
What a brand actually wants when it asks for a match
The request usually decomposes into one of three underlying needs, and identifying which one applies determines the correct approach.
The first is a sensory target. The brand wants its product to feel like a specific product it has used, because that sensation is what its target customer expects. This is a legitimate and very common requirement, and it is best expressed as an attribute target rather than as a request to reproduce a formula: the same spreadability, a similar absorption rate, a comparable finish, a similar texture in the jar.
The second is a performance target. The brand wants its product to be accepted as equivalent in a marketplace where certain formulations are the de facto standard. Here the useful approach is to identify the attributes that define the standard, which are usually a small set of measurable characteristics, and to specify those.
The third is an ownership situation. The brand has been buying a product from a manufacturer or a supplier and wants the same product in its own name, or wants to move production to a different manufacturer. This is a legitimate need, and it is resolved by establishing who holds the formula and whether the brand has the right to use it, which is a contract question before it is a technical one.
Where the request is a genuine desire to copy a third party's product in order to sell a competing version under the brand's own name, that is a different matter, and it is discussed below.
Benchmarking versus copying
Benchmarking is the practice of measuring a reference product to establish the performance target for a new development. It is a normal and useful part of formulation work, and it is what any competent manufacturer does when it wants to understand what a market expects.
Copying is the practice of attempting to reproduce the reference product's formula so that the result is materially the same product. The two are often confused, and the distinction that matters is what the exercise is aimed at: a set of attributes, or the formula itself.
In practical terms, benchmarking produces a brief that says the new product should spread more readily than the reference while absorbing at a similar rate and leaving a less perceptible residue. Copying produces a brief that says the new product should be the same as the reference. The first is a design task with many valid solutions; the second is an attempt to reproduce a specific composition, and it raises legal questions that no amount of technical skill resolves.
What can legitimately be matched
Several attributes can be matched with no legal difficulty, and they are the ones that actually determine consumer acceptance.
Texture and rheology can be matched closely, since the sensory profile results from the structural system rather than from any proprietary ingredient. Absorption behaviour, finish and residue can be matched. Colour can be matched within the limits of the permitted colourant list for the market. Fragrance direction can be matched in character, using a different composition with a similar profile, since the specific fragrance compound is itself a protected creation. Performance attributes such as the pH, the measured hydration effect or the level of protection can be matched or exceeded. And the format, the pack and the application experience can all be matched without difficulty.
What the brand receives in each of these cases is a formula developed to a specification, which the brand owns or can own, rather than a reproduction of someone else's asset.
What cannot be matched
Three things genuinely cannot be matched, and it is worth explaining why rather than simply refusing.
The exact composition cannot be determined from the product. The ingredient list on a pack gives the ingredients in descending order of concentration down to a threshold, which tells a formulator what is present but not in what proportions. Fragrance and flavour are declared under a general term, which conceals the composition of a component that may be the most distinctive part of the product. Analytical techniques can characterise a product and identify its ingredients, but they do not produce the recipe, because the ratio of ingredients and the process used to combine them are what determine the result and neither is recoverable from analysis alone. In practice, an analytical exercise of this kind is expensive and produces an approximation rather than a reproduction.
A fragrance composition cannot be reproduced, because it is a created work protected in its own right, and because a full composition is not disclosed to a buyer. What can be done is to develop a fragrance with a similar character, which is a legitimate brief and produces a different composition.
A patented ingredient or technology cannot be used without a licence, and a brand should assume that any distinctive active technology it sees advertised as proprietary is protected until established otherwise.
The legal position, in outline
A formula that is not published and is kept confidential may be protected as a trade secret, and the legal frameworks in several major jurisdictions provide remedies against obtaining or using a trade secret without authorisation. Independently, attempting to pass off a product as equivalent to a well-known one can raise unfair competition questions.
What this means in practice is that the risk in a copying request falls on both parties. A manufacturer that takes a competitor's product and sets out to reproduce it may be exposed, and so may the brand that commissioned the work. This is why responsible manufacturers decline such requests, and why the refusal should be read as a sign of a sound process rather than as unhelpfulness.
There is a related and simpler question that a brand should be prepared to answer: does the brand hold the rights to the formula it is asking to be made? Where the formula was developed by a previous manufacturer and the brand did not acquire the rights, the brand may not be entitled to have it produced elsewhere, regardless of who owns the brand name on the pack. This is the most common genuine problem in this area, and it is a contract issue rather than a formulation one. The general position is set out here for context and the specific legal position should be confirmed with a lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction.
How a benchmarking project actually runs
A benchmarking project is a normal development project with an additional measurement stage at the beginning, and the sequence is well established.
The brand supplies the reference product physically, together with a statement of which attributes it wants matched and which it does not. The product is characterised: appearance, texture, pH, viscosity, the ingredient list as declared, and any measurable performance attributes. A target specification is then written from those measurements, expressing what the new product must achieve. Development proceeds against that specification, and the resulting formula is compared against the reference on the specified attributes, not as a whole.
Two points make the project work better. The brand should be precise about which attributes are the targets and which are not, because a request to match everything leaves no room for the formulator to improve anything and often produces a worse product than a focused brief. And the comparison should be made on the measured attributes rather than on an overall impression, because an overall impression is dominated by whichever attribute the evaluator noticed last.
Matching attributes and how each is approached
| Attribute | Can it be matched? | How it is approached | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texture and spreadability | Yes, closely | Structuring system, emulsifier choice and oil phase adjusted against a physical reference | Requires a physical sample, not a description |
| Absorption and residue | Yes | Emollient selection and volatility balanced against the target skin feel | Varies with skin type and climate |
| Colour | Yes | Pigment matching within the market's permitted colourant list | A new product identifier is required where the shade changes |
| Fragrance character | In character, not in composition | A new fragrance developed to a similar profile by a fragrance house | The reference fragrance compound cannot be reproduced |
| Measured performance | Yes, or can be exceeded | Specified as a target and verified by the relevant test | The claim rests on the test rather than on similarity to the reference |
| Exact composition | No | Not achievable from a finished product, and not permissible in any case | The label does not disclose proportions |
| Pack and format | Yes | Pack selection and, where necessary, tooling | Pack tooling belongs to whoever commissions it |
Cost and timeline
A benchmarking project costs more than a development against a written brief, because of the characterisation stage, and the additional work is at the beginning rather than spread through the project.
The extra elements are the measurement of the reference product, which may include instrumental work, and the sample evaluation against the reference at each round. Both are modest in themselves, but they add a step to the schedule. A project can be shortened by reducing the number of attributes to be matched, since each attribute adds a measurement and a comparison.
A brand providing a formula it already owns should expect a different and lower cost profile, because the development work has already been done and the project becomes a technical transfer rather than a development. That transfer still requires a scale-up trial, because the same recipe produced on different equipment does not necessarily produce the same product.
When bespoke development is the better route
For a brand whose differentiation is intended to be the product itself, benchmarking a competitor is the wrong starting point.
A product developed against a competitor's attributes can, at best, equal the competitor on those attributes, and the brand will be compared to the competitor on the competitor's terms. A bespoke brief built around a specific customer, a specific concern and a specific sensory proposition has the potential to be distinctive, and it is the route that produces something the brand can describe as its own.
In practice the two are often combined: a sensory reference is used to set the texture target while the ingredient story, the fragrance and the positioning are developed independently. That combination gives the brand a product that feels familiar to use and is nonetheless its own, which is usually the outcome the brand was actually looking for when it asked for a match.
What to prepare
Prepare a physical sample of the reference, a statement of which attributes are targets and which are not, confirmation of whether the brand owns the formula of any product it is asking to be reproduced, the target markets, the format and pack, the first order quantity and the target cost.
Two items prevent wasted work. State the order of importance of the attributes, because a project that has to match texture, scent, colour and cost simultaneously usually cannot be satisfied. And confirm the ownership position in writing before development begins, since a project that cannot proceed further is better identified at the start than after three rounds of sampling.
Frequently asked questions about matching a reference
Can you copy this product exactly?
No, and the reason is technical before it is legal. A finished product does not disclose the proportions of its ingredients or the process used, so an exact reproduction is not achievable even in principle.
What can you match?
Texture, absorption, finish, colour, fragrance character, format and measured performance. The result is a formula developed to a specification the brand owns rather than a reproduction of someone else's product.
We own the brand but the formula belongs to our old manufacturer. What now?
That is a contract question and it should be resolved before development starts. Where the brand does not hold the rights, a new formula can be developed to the same attributes.
Can you analyse a competitor product to work out its formula?
Analytical work can characterise a product and identify ingredients, but it does not recover the recipe, and reproducing another party's confidential formula is not something we undertake.
How much does benchmarking add?
The added cost is the characterisation of the reference and the comparison at each sampling round. It is modest relative to the development itself, and it reduces as the number of target attributes falls.
Next step: define the attributes, not the formula
If you have a reference product in mind, send us the physical sample and a list of the attributes you want matched, together with your markets, and we will characterise it, propose a development route and quote the project. Write to capsulebiotech@163.com, message the right team on WhatsApp: Capsule Series (capsules only) +86 158-7655-5319, Cosmetics Series (serum, hair care, body care, fragrance) +86 158-7655-5319, or use the inquiry form and we will reply within one working day.
Related programmes and guides: firming face cream, amino acid facial cleanser, and our guides to sampling from brief to golden sample and brand IP protection in cosmetic manufacturing.