Running a Brand-vs-Brand GRAS Comparison – WISEcode

The Brand-vs-Brand GRAS Comparison lets you benchmark your portfolio's ingredient-safety profile against another brand's — head-to-head, with the same WISEcode GRAS classification methodology applied to both. This article explains how to run a comparison and how to use the results.

What the comparison shows

The comparison is a side-by-side analysis of two brand portfolios on four GRAS dimensions:

GRAS status share — what percentage of each brand's portfolio is fully GRAS vs contains Unclear or Unsafe ingredients
Flagged ingredient distribution — how many products in each portfolio contain at least one Unclear or Unsafe ingredient
Top driver ingredients — which specific Unclear or Unsafe ingredients account for the largest gap between the two brands
Best and worst performing products — top performers (fully GRAS, clean profile) and outliers (most flagged ingredients) on each side

When to use it

Three high-value scenarios:

1. Safety-led competitive positioning

You compete in a category where ingredient safety is part of the brand story (kids, clean-label, premium natural). The comparison shows you whether your safety story holds up against your closest competitor in the data.

2. Retailer conversations with banned-ingredient lists

Many major retailers maintain restricted- or banned-ingredient lists. The comparison gives you a data-backed answer when a buyer asks "how do you compare to [competitor] on our ingredient standards?" — instead of an opinion-based pitch.

3. Regulatory and ESG documentation

For sustainability disclosures, ESG reports, and regulatory submissions, the GRAS comparison provides defensible third-party-style data on your portfolio's safety posture relative to peers.

How to run a comparison

Open Brand-vs-Brand GRAS Comparison from the Studio reports menu
Confirm your brand. Your portfolio is pre-loaded as the baseline
Select the comparison brand. Search by brand name. Any brand WISEcode has discovered in its public database is eligible — you don't need permission from the other brand to compare against them
Run the comparison. Results generate in seconds
Review and export. The comparison exports as a branded PDF for sharing

Reading the output

The headline number — GRAS status share comparison ("Brand A: 92% fully GRAS · Brand B: 64% fully GRAS")
Flagged distribution — share of each portfolio with at least one Unclear or Unsafe ingredient
Driver list — which specific ingredients are pulling each brand's safety profile down
Product spotlight — best- and worst-performing products on each side

When sharing externally, the driver list is usually the most persuasive section — it shows specifically why one brand has a cleaner GRAS profile, not just that it does.

Limits and caveats

Coverage — the comparison covers products WISEcode has discovered for each brand. If a competitor has a much larger portfolio than what's in the WISEcode database, the comparison may understate their full catalog
Data freshness — discovered data may lag a reformulation by weeks or months. If a competitor recently cleaned up an ingredient list, the comparison may still reflect the older data
Single category at a time — for brands that compete across multiple categories (snacks + beverages, for example), run separate comparisons per category for a fair read
GRAS classifications evolve — an ingredient's status (GRAS, Unclear, Unsafe) can shift over time as regulatory and scientific positions change. The comparison reflects current classifications

Using the comparison externally

The comparison is directional, not a public verification. To represent the data externally:

Internal use — share freely with your team, board, investors
Sales and retailer pitches — share with buyers under standard NDA practices
Public marketing — do not claim verification on the competitor's behalf. Frame the comparison as "according to WISEcode GRAS analysis as of [date]" and avoid disparaging language. WISEcode does not warrant the public use of competitive comparisons in advertising

How GRAS Comparison differs from UPF Comparison

Both comparisons benchmark your brand against another, but they look at different dimensions:

GRAS Comparison focuses on ingredient safety classification (GRAS / Unclear / Unsafe). Best for safety-led positioning and retailer compliance conversations.
UPF Comparison focuses on ultra-processed status and the nine Ingredient Quality categories (Artificial Colors, Flavors, Emulsifiers, Seed Oils, etc.). Best for clean-label and processing-led conversations.

Many brands run both for complete competitive picture.

Common questions

Can I compare against multiple brands at once? Today the comparison runs two brands head-to-head. Multi-brand benchmarking is on the roadmap.

Does the other brand see that I compared against them? No. Comparisons are private to your account.

Can I compare my own brand at two different points in time? Yes. Use the "compare to historical" option to benchmark your portfolio today against your portfolio at a prior date — useful for tracking reformulation progress against your GRAS profile.

Why isn't the brand I want in the search? WISEcode covers most major and mid-size CPG brands. If your target brand isn't appearing, message WISEcode Help — we can prioritize brand ingestion if there's a clear use case.

Can I include the comparison in a press release or earnings call? We recommend talking to your account team first. WISEcode GRAS data is a strong claim — using it externally benefits from a quick review to make sure the framing is supportable.

Next steps

Understanding the Portfolio GRAS Report — the baseline report the comparison builds on
Understanding the Product GRAS Report — single-product drill-down
Running a Brand-vs-Brand UPF Comparison — the parallel ingredient-processing benchmark
Exporting and Sharing Studio Reports — how to package comparisons for retailers and investors

Need help?

For toolkit access, asset specifications, or shield usage questions, submit a request and a member of the WISEcode team will get back to you.