Five CRISPR variants claim to fix CRISPR. One is improving fast enough to replace it.

As of 2024, Base Editing's performance per cost is climbing 136% per year. That is faster than CRISPR/Cas9, Cas12, Cas13, and Prime Editing. At current trajectory, its cost per attempt crosses the Cas9 benchmark by 2031. This report shows what the patent data says, who is driving the technology, and what it means for R&D portfolios built around today's standard.

Why genome editing matters

Genome editing lets scientists alter the DNA of a living organism to change its traits or correct genetic disorders. It is not a niche laboratory technique. It is the underlying technology behind the first FDA-approved gene therapy for sickle cell disease, the rapid sequencing work that enabled the first generation of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, and a growing portion of the agricultural science aimed at feeding a population that is still climbing while arable land is not.

Three applications capture the scope.

In medicine, the FDA's December 2023 approval of a CRISPR/Cas9-based sickle cell therapy was the first regulatory sign-off for a gene-editing treatment of a major inherited disease, affecting millions of patients worldwide.

In pandemic response, genome-editing tools were used to sequence SARS-CoV-2, identify the spike protein, and accelerate mRNA vaccine development, including Moderna's. CRISPR-based diagnostic platforms were also adapted for rapid COVID-19 testing.

In agriculture, gene-edited crops are being developed for higher yields, drought tolerance, and lower input requirements.

The technology works. The question of which variant of it will define the next decade is still open.

The problem: off-target edits

CRISPR/Cas9, the current standard, has a known failure mode. When the system cuts DNA to insert an edit, it occasionally cuts in places other than the intended site. These off-target edits can cause unpredictable biological consequences. For therapeutic use, that is a safety concern serious enough to slow broader clinical adoption. For agriculture and industrial biology, it is a reliability concern that raises cost per successful outcome.

Since 2015, a new generation of CRISPR variants has emerged with one shared goal: reduce off-target edits without losing editing efficiency. CRISPR/Cas12, CRISPR/Cas13, Base Editing, and Prime Editing all promise to improve on the Cas9 baseline.

Which of them will actually succeed, and when, is a meaningful question for any R&D leader with genome editing in their portfolio. This report answers it using patent data.

How we evaluated the technologies

Five attributes decide whether a genome-editing technology can move from research to routine use.

• Precision. How often the edit lands only where it was aimed.
• Efficiency. The success rate of making the intended edit per attempt.
• Ease of use. Compatibility with existing workflows and the availability of required materials.
• Cost. All-in cost per attempt.
• Safety. The risk profile of unintended changes and their biological consequences.

Regulatory approval and commercial adoption depend on all five. No single one decides the outcome.

CRISPR-based technologies compared

We scored the five CRISPR-based technologies against each criterion, along with a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) to capture how far each is from routine use.

On average scores, three of the five technologies are tied at 7.8: CRISPR/Cas9, Base Editing, and Prime Editing. Cas12 sits within 0.2 points. Only Cas13 stands clearly behind, largely because it edits RNA rather than DNA and therefore serves a narrower set of use cases.

Qualitative scores alone cannot tell us which technology will win. The four leading candidates look effectively tied on the criteria that matter. What separates them is something these scores do not capture: how fast each one is actually getting better.

‍

How GetFocus measures which technology is improving fastest

The rate at which a technology is improving has historically predicted which technology wins. Working with researchers at MIT, GetFocus built a method to measure that rate directly from global patent data.

TIR has been validated across more than 50 technology domains. Applied historically, it would have flagged lithium iron phosphate (LFP) as the future battery chemistry for EVs in 2011, six years before the first LFP-powered commercial vehicle reached market. Applied to CRISPR-based genome editing, it answers the question the qualitative comparison could not.

‍

Base Editing is improving the fastest

‍

‍

Is Base Editing really too expensive?

As of 2024, a CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing attempt costs around $5,000 (Synthego CRISPR Benchmark Report). Base Editing, with more expensive materials and reagents, costs roughly 2.5× that, around $12,500 per attempt. At a 136% improvement rate, that premium is temporary.

Applying the TIR forecast, Base Editing is projected to reach Cas9's current $5,000 benchmark by 2031. Beyond that point, on current trajectories, it becomes the cheaper option.

This follows the same pattern CRISPR/Cas9 itself went through between roughly 2013 and 2020: a steep cost decline driven by improvements in editor preparation and delivery methods. The Base Editing invention pipeline, detailed below, suggests the same compression is already underway.

‍

Who is developing Base Editing

The patent landscape shows five institutions leading Base Editing development. Their contributions differ meaningfully in both volume and quality.

Institutional focus areas

Across all five top institutions, the direction of work is clear and consistent. The patent data does not show major divergent strategies. It shows a concentrated, cumulative effort to make Base Editing more precise, more efficient, and easier to deliver. All three of those vectors reduce cost over time.

‍

What this means if genome editing is in your portfolio

The decision facing R&D leaders at pharmaceutical, agricultural, and industrial biology companies is not whether to use genome editing. It is which platform to standardize around.

Base Editing's 136% improvement rate, combined with a cost trajectory that crosses Cas9 by 2031, is a clear signal that Cas9-based pipelines will face increasing pressure from Base Editing-based alternatives through the late 2020s. Companies that standardize on Cas9 today and do not plan a transition pathway will be rebuilding their platforms at the same time their competitors are already deploying on the faster-improving standard.

Most R&D organizations track CRISPR variants informally: trade press, internal experts, conference impressions. Those sources told you Base Editing was promising. They did not tell you it was improving 44 percentage points per year faster than Cas9, or that its cost curve crosses Cas9's in seven years. That is the difference between tracking a trend and measuring it.

‍