Top 5 Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Companies
Medtronic
Dexcom
Abbott Laboratories
Senseonics
Roche
Source: Mordor Intelligence
Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Companies Matrix by Mordor Intelligence
Our comprehensive proprietary performance metrics of key Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) players beyond traditional revenue and ranking measures
The MI Matrix can diverge from simple revenue rankings because it weights in scope presence and in scope execution signals, not just current sales volume. It also reflects how quickly companies translate approvals into reliable operations, training readiness, and connected software performance across regions. Capability indicators that shift outcomes include launch cadence since 2023, integration breadth with insulin delivery partners, stability of sensor supply, and evidence of scaled customer support. Many buyers are trying to understand which CGM systems are easiest to integrate into dosing workflows, and which ones can scale into OTC style channels without losing safety discipline. They also want to know how implantable and predictive CGM features will change clinic staffing and follow up models over the next two years. Using this MI Matrix by Mordor Intelligence improves supplier and competitor evaluation because it balances footprint, product progress, and delivery ability rather than relying on revenue tables alone.
MI Competitive Matrix for Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM)
The MI Matrix benchmarks top Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Companies on dual axes of Impact and Execution Scale.
Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Companies and Quadrants in the MI Competitive Matrix
Comprehensive positioning breakdown
Abbott Laboratories
Recent device safety actions showed how tightly quality systems tie to payer and clinician trust in CGM programs. Even as a leading player, Abbott can still face adoption friction when field corrections raise confirmatory testing and support calls. OTC clearances broaden access and iCGM integration positions the portfolio for more automated dosing partnerships. If OTC demand scales faster than manufacturing yield, channel allocations could tighten in clinics and diabetes centers, and the main operational risk is managing lot level performance signals without disrupting supply continuity.
Dexcom Inc.
Product cadence since 2024 has pushed Dexcom deeper into both intensive and non intensive use segments. Dexcom, a top brand, benefits when FDA clearances translate into simpler wear patterns, including longer wear time, and into software guided dosing support for type 2 users. If payer rules loosen for broader access, attach rates to digital coaching could rise because Smart Basal links recommendations to sensor data. The largest operational risk is scaling customer support and app reliability while expanding into OTC adjacent channels and new user behaviors.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which CGM vendors are easiest to integrate with automated insulin dosing systems?
Look for vendors with clear device compatibility lists, stable Bluetooth performance, and multiple cleared integration partners. Also check whether the sensor is cleared for integration and whether updates require new prescriptions.
What regulatory checks should hospitals and clinics do before adopting a CGM system?
Confirm the exact indicated use, age range, and care setting labeling. Validate whether alarms, calibration needs, and dosing decisions are supported within the cleared labeling.
How should a health system compare sensor reliability across vendors?
Ask for post launch safety actions, lot level quality processes, and how replacements are handled. Also review whether confirmatory fingerstick guidance is clear for symptom mismatches.
What drives total cost of ownership for a CGM program?
Beyond sensor price, cost is shaped by training time, replacement speed, app support burden, and the number of failed insertions. Reimbursement rules can also shift patient out of pocket burden sharply.
How do implantable CGM options change adoption decisions?
Implantables can reduce supply logistics but add clinic procedure scheduling and training needs. They fit best where insertion capacity and follow up workflows are dependable.
What are the most common operational risks when scaling CGM use across countries?
The biggest risks are uneven reimbursement timing, inconsistent distributor training, and variable customer support quality. Data privacy expectations and app uptime requirements also rise as volume grows.
Methodology
Research approach and analytical framework
Data sourcing: Used public company investor materials, press rooms, and regulatory filings where available. Private company scoring relied on observable product signals and disclosed capabilities. Evidence was triangulated across approvals, launches, and channel moves within the defined scope. When financial detail was limited, scores leaned on operational scale and verified commercialization activity.
More covered countries and care settings improve access, training, and replacements for sensors, transmitters, and receivers.
Trust matters because CGM readings drive dosing decisions and clinicians avoid systems with uneven reliability signals.
Higher in scope unit volume supports better pricing, broader reimbursement pull, and faster ecosystem partnerships.
Dedicated sensor production, quality systems, and service teams reduce stockouts and speed replacements.
New wear time, dosing support software, and predictive alerts since 2023 shift user adherence and clinician preference.
Stronger CGM economics fund trials, regulatory work, and scaling support capacity across regions.
