Part
01
of one
Part
01
Please compare Nanobionic with other wearable textile technology companies and how they are differentiated on: product, brand positioning, fundraising history, and growth.
Hello there! Thank you for your question on Nanobionic's competitors and how they differ. The short answer is that I have identified Nanobionic's top three competitors as Hexoskin, OMSignal, and Athos. A compact overview of this competitive analysis has been compiled into a spreadsheet. Below you will find a deep dive of my findings.
METHODOLOGY
I began by familiarizing myself with Nanobionic as a company, as well as their stance in the textile technology market sector. Next, I searched extensively through corporate websites and industry reports for any relevant information. In an effort to provide a full scope of information, I looked at trusted media sites to develop an understanding of the opinions and trends surrounding the companies. As the identified companies are all privately held information regarding their revenue figures and fundraising history were often limited. This is due to the fact that the majority of information is not released to the public, however, enough quantitative information has been collected to illustrate their financial presence.
FINDINGS
In order to identify Nanobionic's direct competitors, I first looked in o the "smart textile" industry. On a whole, the smart textile market shows strong signs of growth with a forecast of a 30% increase by 2023. Notably, this growth is reported to be fueled by a rising desire for wearable technology. However, this may be due to the large growth in demand in the military and safety sectors. I localized my search to other companies in the industry that focus on smart apparel (wearable technology in clothing or athletic apparel). Next, I identified companies with a similar product portfolio and target market to Nanobionic. The top three competitors I have selected are Hexoskin, OMSignal, and Athos. As these were the only identifiable competitors that resemble Nanobionic in their product lines, I have not ranked or selected these companies with their revenue figures in mind. This is due to the fact that the wearable technology market is primarily focusing on monitoring and integrating with other technologies.
A compact overview of this competitive landscape can be viewed on this spreadsheet, however, as the findings were quite extensive please refer here for full details. Below I will break down my findings into sub-sections for your ease of reading. I will address each identified competitor in regard to their differentiation in products, brand positioning, fundraising history, and growth.
HEXOSKIN
This company displays an array of wearable technology from t-shirts to hats. The technology aspect comes in the form of an attachable device, this device is used to measure various metrics of the wearer. This is slightly different to other smart textiles which fully incorporate devices into the clothing material. The previously mentioned metrics measured by the device are specified: "Heart rate, breathing rate, minute ventilation (total volume of air inhaled in one minute), maximum heart rate, resting heart rate, heart rate recovery, VO2 max, and running cadence (steps per minute)". This illustrates a strong brand positioning focus on health awareness and care. This ideal is further reiterated in their future plans for their wearable devices which include sleep medication and chronic disease management.
Founded in 2006, they have grown to attain an annual revenue of $10 million. This is a tremendous increase on the previous year, with a reported revenue of $1 million in January 2015. A similar pattern of growth can be seen in their employee figures which grew by 195 in the same year. To reach this level of success, they received a total of $3.23 million in funding over the years. A total of 4 funding rounds spanned from 2012 to 2015, over the years their funding from investors grew.
OMSIGNAL
This company is largely similar to Hexoskin in their product line, a device is attached to t-shirts for the consumer to wear. Their full product line also includes sports bras and tank tops. Overall, their brand positioning is more fitness based as supposed to healthcare. This can be seen in the fact that their apparel choices are predominantly fitness gear. A full description of the devices' specifications can be seen: "Real-time insights and alerts respond to your body's biometrics, Analysis of heart rate, breathing rate, and volume and intensity levels, Biomechanical analysis and feedback to enhance performance and reduce injury". It can be surmised from their products and branding that their target market is the average active person, as supposed to professional athletes.
Founded in 2011, they report to having achieved an annual revenue of $1 million. Unfortunately, in this case, no revenue history can be found to determine the company's growth rate. However, funding history is well-documented at a total of $20.8 million to date. There is some indication of growth in the fact that their funding and interest by investors has grown over the years. Recently, in 2016 they received a large donation of $10 million in the interest of their new product launch OMBra. This shows a positive trend for the brand.
ATHOS
As previously mentioned, Athos also sports wearable products with an attachable device. In this case, the device is detailed to attach to the base layer of the t-shirt. Data yielded by the device is received on a mobile app. The product differs slightly in the fact that the metrics measured focus in muscle activation as supposed to heart rate. The exact specifications are detailed: "muscle contribution, left/right balance, and real-time muscle activation". This represents a strong fitness focus, targeted more towards professional athletes and optimizing potential. In this pursuit, they have had great success at helping athletes to take a step up (a study can be viewed on NFL athletes using their product).
Founded in 2012, they have achieved a total of $1 million in annual revenue. This is a decline on previous years, they reported to have a total revenue of $5 million in July 2014 and have seen a steady decline since then. Statistically, this amounts to a decline rate of 80% over the 2-year span. On the other hand, their funding history tells another story. Of all the companies analyzed, they have the largest contribution from investors at $50 million to date. A large proportion of this derives from a single donation in 2015 of $35 million. This could indicate that future growth is yet to come.
CONCLUSION
To wrap it up, I have been able to identify the companies best described as Nanobionic's competitors in the textile technology industry. I have delved into each of these companies structure, positioning, and financial stance. Throughout my analysis, I have endeavored to include as much quantitative information as possible in support of my findings.
Thank you for using Wonder! Please let us know if there's anything else we can assist you with.