First of all, Botox and FCSC address two different cosmetic concerns. Botox, which is a toxin, relaxes muscles. It does not fill in wrinkles. And while it has the majority of this market, the $1.5 billion in sales is just Botox. Dysport, its competition, will soon be at $300 million in sales per year.
Fillers such as juvederm, restylane and collagen are made of acids, gels and /or animal proteins. They do just that, they "fill". And they last about only 3 months
FCSC is more natural, in the sense that the product does not inject acids or foreign materials/toxins. It encourages the skin to make more of its own natural collagen to fill in wrinkles. Whether or not the existing fillers are better or not, from what I was told by the doctors' offices who have experience, totally depends on how many injection sessions the patient has. The more injectiions over the weeks, the better, and in general it is believed to have a much longer lasting effect. The longer effect translates in to fewer doctor visits and $ savings over the long run, making this an attractive choice in the overall market. There is plenty of room for botox, fillers and, I believe, this new one.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
