Sharps — U.S. Market Targeting & Ease-of-Capture

Layered TAM, real treatment network & competitor sites, profit-weighted ease, and where share is quickest to win vs. Stericycle/WM. Tap any metro for the playbook. Illustrative — public + modeled inputs.

$8.9B
TAM (served)
$2.7–4.0B
SAM (reach)
$148→255M
SOM (plan)
5
Treatment sites
6
Quick-win metros
Segment lens
Base layer
Overlays
Pinch / scroll to zoom · drag to pan · tap a metro for its playbook
▶ Tap any target metro on the map (or a row below) to see the 90-day playbook — recommended play, named target systems, obtainable revenue, and reps to deploy.

Top Targets — All segments

    Hotter = easier to capture Target metro Quick-win Competitor site
    Methodology & sources

    Ease-of-capture = weighted blend of demand (AHA staffed-bed density), Sharps proximity (distance to nearest treatment site), competitor vulnerability (Stericycle/WM billing & ERP disruption, ~18% SQG hikes, ~$295M settlement), and speed-to-win. Profit-weighted adjusts ease by a cost-to-serve/margin proxy (route density). Weights shift by segment.

    $ obtainable allocates the plan's $255M SOM across metros by ease × demand; reps allocate the sales-capacity build. SAM $2.7B route core / $4.0B with mailback reach — corroborates the model's $3.6B.

    Real public data: Sharps treatment in Carthage TX & Nesquehoning PA, and competitor facilities (Stericycle, Daniels Sharpsmart, Trilogy) from public directories/permits. VA/MD/Blue Ridge sites and all scores are illustrative, to be refined with internal account & route data on Day 1. True drive-time isochrones require a live routing API (fast-follow).