What are the top synthetic biology startups by revenue?

The ranking of top startups in the synthetic biology market by revenue

Below is a table ranking all the companies in this market by their current revenue scale. You can find our methodology at the end of this page.

If you want a deeper understanding of the market and its current dynamics, get our report covering the Synthetic Biology Market.

What should actually count as a synthetic biology startup?

For this ranking, we count companies whose business depends heavily on engineering DNA, proteins, enzymes, microbes or biological production systems, while keeping a close eye on whether we are looking at a startup, an older public company or just one synthetic-biology division inside a much larger group.

That definition covers gene synthesis, biofoundries, precision fermentation, engineered microbes, enzyme engineering and some crop-engineering businesses. It also includes a few biotechnology companies where synthetic biology sits at the center of the platform, although their revenue can be harder to compare with straightforward product sales.

The word “startup” gets messy quite quickly. GenScript was founded in 2002. Cathay Biotech dates back to 2000. BRAIN Biotech was founded in the 1990s. Leaving successful companies out simply because they survived long enough to mature would give us a strange picture of how large synthetic biology businesses can become.

So we use the broader commercial market for the main comparison, then look separately at private venture-backed companies where that distinction changes the answer.

Which synthetic biology companies make the most revenue today?

GenScript's Life Science Group currently leads the cleanest synthetic biology revenue ranking we could build, followed by Cathay Biotech and Anhui Huaheng Biotechnology, with all three far ahead of most better-known US startups.

GenScript's Life Science Group generated $522.1 million in 2025. Cathay Biotech reported CNY3.30 billion of revenue for the same year, roughly in the mid-$400-million range, while Huaheng reported CNY2.86 billion, around $400 million.

Then comes a large drop. Twist Bioscience generated $145 million from its synthetic-biology business in FY2025, while Ginkgo Bioworks recorded $132.7 million of Cell Engineering revenue. Sutro Biopharma generated $102.5 million, although that number came mainly from collaborations and should not be read like $102.5 million of recurring product sales.

Among private companies, Pivot Bio has the strongest direct evidence we found: it crossed $100 million of annual revenue in FY2023. Perfect Day may also be close to that level, but its $90.3 million figure comes from a third-party estimate rather than company accounts.

Company	Best comparable revenue figure	What it represents	Evidence
GenScript Life Science Group	$522.1M	FY2025 segment revenue	Filed / company results
Cathay Biotech	CNY3.30B	FY2025 revenue	Audited annual report
Anhui Huaheng Biotechnology	CNY2.86B	FY2025 revenue	Audited annual report
Twist Bioscience	$145M	FY2025 SynBio revenue	Company results
Ginkgo Bioworks	$132.7M	FY2025 Cell Engineering revenue	SEC filing
Sutro Biopharma	$102.5M	FY2025 company revenue	SEC filing
Pivot Bio	>$100M	FY2023 annual revenue	Company disclosed
Perfect Day	~$90.3M	2025 estimated revenue	Third-party estimate
Codexis	$70.4M	FY2025 revenue	SEC filing
LanzaTech	$55.8M	FY2025 revenue	SEC filing

Is GenScript really the biggest synthetic biology company by revenue?

GenScript has the strongest claim to the top spot today, and its latest results make that position look stronger rather than weaker.

The important number is not GenScript Biotech's entire group revenue. We use the Life Science Group because it contains the gene-synthesis and gene-to-protein activities that make the cleanest comparison with synthetic-biology companies elsewhere in the ranking.

That business generated $522.1 million in 2025, up 14.8% year over year. GenScript also reported $267.3 million of adjusted gross profit and $95.4 million of adjusted operating profit for the division.

The newer numbers are even more useful. In the first half of 2026, Life Science Group revenue reached roughly $319 million, up 28.8% year over year. Gene-to-protein activities accounted for about two-thirds of that revenue.

GenScript is already running well above its 2025 pace. We do not annualize the half-year figure and quietly call it revenue, but it tells us that the $522 million ranking number is not an old high-water mark.

Its business also looks much more mature than the typical synbio startup model. GenScript sells DNA, proteins, antibodies and related research services to a large customer base rather than depending on one industrial plant, one partnership or one future blockbuster product.

Are Cathay Biotech and Huaheng really bigger than Twist and Ginkgo?

Cathay Biotech and Huaheng are currently much bigger revenue businesses than Twist's synthetic-biology division or Ginkgo's Cell Engineering operation.

Cathay reported CNY3.30 billion of 2025 revenue, up 11.4%. Huaheng reported CNY2.86 billion, up 31.4%, with the company saying higher amino-acid sales volumes drove much of the increase.

Twist's FY2025 SynBio revenue was $145 million. Ginkgo's Cell Engineering revenue was $132.7 million. Even allowing for exchange rates and differences in business models, the gap is large.

Cathay and Huaheng benefit from something many synthetic biology startups still lack: industrial volume. They manufacture bio-based chemicals and materials through biological processes and sell physical output into existing markets.

That creates a completely different revenue profile from selling a limited number of cell-engineering programs each year.

It also explains why a ranking based on media coverage would be misleading. Some of the largest synthetic biology businesses today are industrial manufacturers in China that attract far less attention in Western startup circles.

Is Twist Bioscience bigger than Ginkgo Bioworks now?

Twist has moved ahead of Ginkgo on current commercial momentum, and the latest numbers have widened the gap.

For FY2025, Twist reported $145 million of SynBio revenue against Ginkgo's $132.7 million of Cell Engineering revenue. That comparison was already slightly in Twist's favor.

Since then, Twist has accelerated. Its DNA Synthesis and Protein Solutions business generated $56.6 million in the latest reported quarter, up 39% year over year. The company physically shipped roughly 369,000 genes during that quarter, compared with about 237,000 a year earlier.

Ginkgo is moving the other way for now. Total company revenue fell to $20 million in its latest reported quarter, down 48% year over year, as its restructuring and program rationalization continued.

As seen above, Ginkgo's 2025 Cell Engineering revenue was already down from $174 million the previous year. Twist, meanwhile, is still adding customers, shipping more genes and growing its core DNA/protein business.

At this point, the gap is fairly clear: Twist is currently the stronger commercial synthetic-biology business of the two.

Which private synthetic biology startups make the most revenue?

Pivot Bio has the strongest directly disclosed revenue figure among the large private synthetic biology startups we found, while Perfect Day and Solugen probably sit somewhere behind it but with much weaker certainty.

Pivot Bio said its FY2023 revenue grew by more than 60% and crossed $100 million for the first time. That is old enough that we would not call $100 million its current revenue, but it remains much stronger evidence than an external database estimate.

Perfect Day is estimated by CB Insights at $90.3 million of 2025 revenue. Solugen generated $79.3 million in FY2023 according to financial information reviewed by investor Baillie Gifford.

Solugen's case needs extra caution because the same investor report showed revenue falling to $22.2 million in the first half of 2024, down 41% year over year. Treating the older $79 million figure as if it described the company today would be misleading.

Below those names, precision drops quickly. Several private companies appear commercially substantial but either disclose no revenue or have outside estimates that disagree by tens of millions of dollars.

Private company	Best public evidence	What we can reasonably say
Pivot Bio	>$100M FY2023 revenue	Nine-figure revenue demonstrated
Perfect Day	~$90.3M 2025 estimate	Probably one of the largest private players, but unverified
Solugen	$79.3M FY2023 revenue	Large historical revenue, followed by a sharp slowdown
Genomatica	$48M 2020 revenue	Meaningful but very old disclosure
Modern Meadow	Widely varying external estimates	Commercial, exact position unclear
Spiber	Large external estimates	Potentially significant, weak public financial evidence
Cradle	50+ R&D programs	Strong customer adoption, revenue undisclosed
Liberation Bioindustries	600,000L plant	Large physical capacity, revenue undisclosed

Is Perfect Day really making around $90 million a year?

Perfect Day may be generating close to $90 million in annual revenue, but we would not treat that number as confirmed.

CB Insights currently reports $90.3 million of 2025 revenue for the precision-fermentation company. That would put Perfect Day close to the private-company leaders.

The problem is provenance. We could not match the figure to a Perfect Day annual report, regulatory filing or direct company announcement saying it generated exactly $90.3 million.

That does not make the estimate useless. It gives us a rough idea of where Perfect Day may sit commercially. It simply belongs in a different evidence category from Pivot Bio announcing that it crossed $100 million or Codexis filing $70.4 million with the SEC.

The false precision is what we want to avoid. “Roughly $90 million based on an external estimate” is a fair description. “Perfect Day makes $90.3 million” sounds much more certain than the evidence allows.

How big is Solugen today?

Solugen has proved that an industrial synthetic biology startup can reach tens of millions of dollars in sales, but its current revenue is much harder to pin down.

Baillie Gifford's review of private companies included unaudited Solugen financials showing $84.9 million of revenue in FY2022 and $79.3 million in FY2023.

The more revealing figure came next. Revenue was $22.2 million in the first half of 2024, 41% below the same period a year earlier.

That makes the old $79 million number a poor shortcut for Solugen's current size. The company may have changed trajectory again since then, but without newer high-quality financial disclosure we cannot assume that it returned to its earlier peak.

Solugen remains one of the more advanced industrial synbio companies, with a business built around biologically produced chemicals rather than research-stage technology. Its exact position in a current revenue ranking is simply less certain than the headline historical number suggests.

Which synthetic biology companies have already passed $100 million in revenue?

At least seven companies in our research have solid evidence of reaching $100 million or more in relevant annual revenue, although the quality and age of those figures differ.

GenScript, Cathay and Huaheng sit comfortably above that threshold. Twist and Ginkgo are above it in their relevant synthetic-biology segments. Sutro reported $102.5 million of company revenue, and Pivot Bio directly disclosed that it had crossed $100 million.

That is still a short list given how much money has gone into synthetic biology over the past decade.

Perfect Day could eventually join it on stronger evidence, but the current estimate remains below the threshold anyway. Codexis and LanzaTech are solidly commercial while still sitting below $100 million.

The $100 million mark remains a useful dividing line in this market. Plenty of synthetic-biology companies have raised nine figures. Far fewer have shown that they can generate nine figures of annual sales.

What kinds of synthetic biology companies make the most money?

The largest synthetic biology businesses today tend to sell either high-volume physical products or standardized research infrastructure.

Cathay and Huaheng manufacture materials and chemicals at industrial scale. GenScript and Twist sell DNA and other laboratory inputs repeatedly to biotechnology and pharmaceutical customers. Pivot Bio sells engineered microbial products into agriculture.

Ginkgo uses a different model based around cell-engineering programs and laboratory infrastructure. Sutro receives substantial partnership revenue. Codexis combines enzyme sales with licensing and R&D agreements.

These models can all produce revenue, but they do not scale in the same way. Selling thousands of tonnes of a chemical or hundreds of thousands of genes creates a much more direct path to a large top line than waiting for a small number of milestone payments.

Business model	Examples	What drives revenue
DNA / research infrastructure	GenScript, Twist	Repeated customer orders
Industrial biomanufacturing	Cathay, Huaheng	Production volume
Agricultural biologicals	Pivot Bio	Product sales across farm acreage
Cell-engineering platforms	Ginkgo	Programs, services and licenses
Enzyme engineering	Codexis, BRAIN	Enzymes, R&D and licensing
Gas fermentation	LanzaTech	Products, engineering and licenses
Precision-fermented food	Perfect Day, EVERY, Onego	Ingredient supply
Therapeutic platforms	Sutro	Collaborations and milestones

Why do DNA synthesis companies make so much synthetic biology revenue?

DNA synthesis has become one of synthetic biology's strongest businesses because customers already know what they are buying and can order it again and again.

GenScript is the clearest example. Its Life Science Group now generates hundreds of millions of dollars from an integrated gene-to-protein business.

Twist shows the same pattern at a smaller scale. Its DNA Synthesis and Protein Solutions revenue reached $56.6 million in its latest quarter, while gene shipments jumped to roughly 369,000.

Integrated DNA Technologies gives us another clue even though Danaher does not disclose its standalone revenue. IDT says it serves more than 135,000 researchers every year and has more than 2,000 employees across 11 global offices.

These businesses avoid one of the biggest problems in industrial synthetic biology: they do not have to convince the world to adopt an entirely new material or ingredient before revenue starts.

Researchers already need DNA, genes, oligos and related products. Better synthesis mainly gives suppliers a chance to take more of an existing market.

Does Sutro's $102 million really belong next to product companies?

Sutro's $102.5 million of FY2025 revenue is real accounting revenue, but it should carry less weight than the same amount of recurring product sales.

Sutro said the 2025 figure related principally to collaborations with Astellas and Ipsen. The company also warns that future collaboration and license revenue can move sharply depending on the timing of upfront payments, milestones and other agreement revenue.

That creates a different commercial profile from Twist shipping genes or Huaheng selling amino acids.

Sutro still deserves a place above $100 million in a literal revenue ranking. We just should not infer that it has built a $100 million annual customer-sales engine.

The distinction becomes important whenever we compare therapeutic synthetic biology with tools or industrial biotechnology. Both can report revenue, but one can depend heavily on a small number of partnership events while the other comes from thousands of normal commercial transactions.

How much money are enzyme-engineering companies making?

Enzyme engineering has already produced several businesses in the tens-of-millions range, with Codexis and BRAIN Biotech providing the clearest current numbers.

Codexis reported $70.4 million of revenue in 2025. Only $26 million came from product revenue; $44.4 million came from research and development revenue, helped by licensing agreements.

The latest quarter gives us a useful update. Codexis generated $14.9 million of total revenue, while quarterly product revenue rose 79% year over year to $13.2 million. For the first half, product revenue increased 52%.

That is a better current commercial datapoint than simply repeating the 2025 total, because a larger share of the recent business is coming from actual enzyme products.

BRAIN Biotech generated €49.6 million in FY2024/25, of which €45.4 million came from BRAINBiocatalysts, its enzyme, microorganism and ingredient business.

So enzyme engineering is already a real commercial category. It just has not yet produced many independent companies at the $100 million-plus level.

Is LanzaTech actually making meaningful revenue now?

LanzaTech is a genuine commercial synthetic biology business, although its latest numbers show that revenue growth is still uneven.

The company generated $55.8 million in 2025, up from $49.6 million the previous year.

Its more recent quarterly result was less exciting: $9.0 million of revenue, almost unchanged from $9.1 million a year earlier. Engineering and other services increased, while joint-development and licensing revenue declined.

LanzaTech's financial profile looks more like a company that has reached commercial scale but has not yet found a smooth growth curve.

There has been much clearer progress on costs. Adjusted EBITDA improved sharply in the latest quarter, from negative $29.7 million a year earlier to negative $7.6 million.

For the revenue ranking, LanzaTech belongs around the middle of the established commercial group. For the broader question of whether gas fermentation has produced a consistently growing business, the evidence is still mixed.

Are precision-fermentation food startups making real money yet?

Precision-fermentation food startups are selling real products now, but public evidence still does not show a broad group of large revenue businesses.

Perfect Day is the obvious exception if its roughly $90 million external estimate is close to reality.

The EVERY Company has given us a strong demand datapoint without giving us dollars: during the first four months of 2026, it said annual orders secured were equivalent to 550% of its entire 2025 order volume.

Onego Bio and Vivici are also moving into commercial supply, while Liberation Bioindustries has built the manufacturing infrastructure needed to produce ingredients for companies in this market.

The category has clearly moved beyond endless pilot announcements. What we still lack is enough hard financial disclosure to say that several precision-fermentation food startups are doing $50 million, $100 million or $200 million a year.

For now, commercial adoption is easier to prove than large revenue.

Which newer synthetic biology startups look commercial even without disclosed revenue?

Cradle, Liberation Bioindustries, Epoch Biodesign and Antheia are among the more interesting companies that now show real commercial traction without giving us a clean annual revenue number.

Cradle says its protein-engineering platform is already used across more than 50 R&D programs and by six of the world's top 25 pharmaceutical companies. Some early projects have expanded into multiyear commitments.

Liberation Bioindustries has 600,000 liters of initial fermentation capacity at its Richmond facility. The company also said well over half of the plant's nameplate capacity had either been contracted or was in late-stage agreements.

Epoch Biodesign has gone further into physical manufacturing by acquiring a nylon 6,6 production site with more than 50,000 tonnes of annual polymerization capacity.

Antheia has already delivered its first commercial order of biosynthetic thebaine and is working through a pipeline of more than 70 pharmaceutical ingredients.

None of those datapoints should be multiplied by assumed prices to invent revenue. They do tell us that these companies have progressed well beyond a research-only stage.

How much revenue can a synthetic biology startup reach before it stops feeling like a startup?

Around $50 million to $150 million is currently where synthetic biology companies start to look much more like established operating businesses than experimental ventures.

LanzaTech sits around $56 million of annual revenue. Codexis is at $70 million. Pivot Bio crossed $100 million. Ginkgo's Cell Engineering operation and Twist's synthetic-biology business moved above $130 million.

Companies that reach several hundred million tend to be older industrial businesses or mature research suppliers. GenScript, Cathay and Huaheng fit that pattern.

That transition is useful when reading the ranking. The top companies show what synthetic biology can become after commercialization has worked for years. The private startups below them show how rare it still is to get there.

A company does not suddenly stop being innovative when it matures, but after twenty years and hundreds of millions of dollars of annual sales, “startup” stops being a very useful description.

Does high revenue mean a synthetic biology company has a good business?

High synthetic biology revenue tells us that customers are paying, but it says surprisingly little on its own about profitability or business quality.

GenScript's Life Science Group gives us one of the healthier examples. Alongside $522.1 million of 2025 revenue, it generated $95.4 million of adjusted operating profit.

LanzaTech shows the other side. Revenue reached $55.8 million in 2025, yet adjusted EBITDA was still deeply negative for the year. Its latest quarter shows that the loss is narrowing quickly, but the business has not simply become attractive because revenue passed $50 million.

Ginkgo also remains loss-making while rebuilding its cost base and commercial model.

Even fast revenue growth can hide pressure elsewhere. Huaheng's 2025 revenue grew more than 30%, yet profitability did not move in the same direction.

Revenue is useful for answering our question about commercial scale. It should not be read as a ranking of which synthetic biology companies have the best economics.

How much can we trust private synthetic biology revenue estimates?

Private synthetic biology revenue estimates are useful for rough sizing, but some are nowhere near reliable enough for an exact ranking.

Perfect Day's $90.3 million estimate is at least a single identifiable datapoint from a major private-market database.

Other companies are much harder. Public estimates for some private synthetic biology businesses differ by several multiples depending on the database. One source can place a company below $10 million while another puts it above $50 million.

At that point, choosing a midpoint would give the illusion that we know something we do not.

This is why public-company disclosures dominate the ranking even when private startups may be growing quickly behind the scenes. SEC filings and audited annual reports give us a figure tied to an accounting period and a defined corporate perimeter. Private databases usually cannot offer the same certainty.

We use those estimates when they help establish a rough commercial tier, but they do not outrank cleaner evidence simply because the number is larger.

Which big synthetic biology companies are missing because revenue is not disclosed?

Integrated DNA Technologies is probably the clearest example of a large synthetic biology business that cannot be placed properly in the ranking.

IDT says it serves more than 135,000 researchers per year, operates in more than 100 countries and employs more than 2,000 people. That is plainly a large commercial organization.

Its parent company, Danaher, does not give us a clean standalone revenue figure for IDT's DNA-synthesis activities.

GENEWIZ creates a similar problem inside Azenta. Revenue is reported for a broader Multiomics segment that mixes gene synthesis with other services, so assigning that entire number to synthetic biology would exaggerate the business we are trying to measure.

Then there are private companies such as Liberation Bioindustries or Epoch Biodesign where physical capacity has become substantial but recognized revenue remains undisclosed.

Leaving those companies unranked makes the table less complete. It also keeps the ranking honest.

Are synthetic biology startups finally becoming real commercial businesses?

Yes, synthetic biology now has a meaningful group of real revenue businesses, but commercialization is much more concentrated than years of funding headlines suggested.

The strongest companies have already reached hundreds of millions of dollars in annual sales. GenScript's latest half-year numbers show that the leader is still growing quickly. Twist's current DNA/protein business is accelerating. Huaheng grew more than 30% last year.

At the same time, Ginkgo's recent revenue contraction, LanzaTech's uneven growth and the lack of hard revenue disclosure across much of precision fermentation show how difficult the transition remains.

We now have enough evidence to stop asking whether synthetic biology can generate serious revenue at all. It clearly can.

The more interesting divide these days is between companies that have found a repeatable way to sell biology at scale and companies that have proved impressive technology but are still working out the commercial machine around it.

So what are the top synthetic biology startups by revenue today?

GenScript, Cathay Biotech and Anhui Huaheng Biotechnology currently sit at the top of the synthetic biology revenue market, while Pivot Bio has the strongest direct claim among the major private venture-backed startups we researched.

GenScript's Life Science Group generated $522.1 million in 2025 and has since accelerated, reaching about $319 million in the first half of 2026 alone. Cathay reported CNY3.30 billion of 2025 revenue, while Huaheng reached CNY2.86 billion.

Twist is currently the strongest company in the next tier. Its FY2025 synthetic-biology revenue was $145 million, and its newer DNA Synthesis and Protein Solutions revenue is growing much faster. Ginkgo remains a large synthetic biology company, but its recent numbers point in the opposite direction.

Among private startups, Pivot Bio is the cleanest confirmed nine-figure case. Perfect Day may be close, while Solugen previously reached almost $80 million but later reported a sharp slowdown.

The wider pattern is hard to miss. The biggest synthetic biology businesses are generally the companies that turned engineered biology into something customers can buy repeatedly: DNA, proteins, chemicals, enzymes, agricultural inputs or industrial output.

The science still matters enormously, but the revenue leaders today are the companies that built a commercial system around it.