Tracking Biosimilar Price Erosion: A 2026 Guide to EU Markets 

As another wave of high-value biologics approaches loss of exclusivity, understanding these differences has become a strategic priority for market access, pricing, and commercial teams. 

The challenge is that biosimilar price erosion cannot be measured using a single published price or national database. Meaningful benchmarking requires comparing multiple price levels, normalizing prices by Defined Daily Dose (DDD), and following historical trends across countries. That is why many pricing teams are moving beyond manual spreadsheets toward dedicated international pricing platforms such as Ex-PRICE. 

What price erosion means – and why 2026 matters 

Price erosion describes the decline in the price of a medicine following the introduction of biosimilar competition. However, measuring erosion is more complex than simply comparing list prices before and after market entry. 

Published list prices often tell only part of the story. Actual purchasing conditions may be influenced by reimbursement revisions, tender outcomes, confidential discounts, managed-entry agreements, or regional procurement policies. As a result, two analysts examining different price levels can arrive at very different conclusions about the same product. 

Likewise, package prices alone can be misleading. Differences in strengths, pack sizes, and dosing regimens make direct comparisons difficult, particularly across countries. For international benchmarking, price per Defined Daily Dose (DDD) – the standard measurement methodology developed by the World Health Organization—is generally a more reliable indicator of the actual cost of therapy. 

2026 marks the beginning of the next major wave of biologic competition in Europe. Following the first generation of blockbuster biosimilars such as infliximab, trastuzumab, rituximab and adalimumab, Europe is entering a new cycle of loss-of-exclusivity (LoE) events. According to published data, 24 major biologics are expected to lose exclusivity between 2025 and 2032, while approximately 100 biologic medicines will reach European LoE by 2032. Importantly, many of these medicines currently have few – or no – biosimilar candidates in development, creating uncertainty around future competition, pricing pressure, and healthcare savings.

For pricing and market-access teams, this means that monitoring post-LoE price evolution is becoming just as important as forecasting the LoE event itself. Combined with continued biosimilar approvals by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the coming years will significantly reshape pharmaceutical pricing across Europe. 

The metrics that matter 

Not every pricing metric reflects market reality equally well. For cross-country comparisons, price per DDD should generally serve as the primary benchmark. Because DDD standardizes medicine consumption regardless of package configuration, it enables analysts to compare therapeutic costs consistently across products and markets. 

Distinguishing between different price levels is equally important: 

• Ex-factory prices reflect the manufacturer's selling price before distribution. 
• Wholesaler & pharmacy prices incorporate margins on level of distribution and pharmacy. 
• Reimbursed prices represent what healthcare systems ultimately recognize for reimbursement and often differ substantially from published list prices. 

These values rarely move together. A medicine may retain a relatively stable published list price while reimbursement adjustments or tender outcomes significantly reduce its effective market price. Monitoring only one pricing level can therefore underestimate – or overestimate – the true extent of biosimilar price erosion. 

This is one reason pricing teams increasingly require access to multiple standardized price levels rather than relying solely on publicly available national price lists. 

Europe is not one biosimilar market 

Although biosimilars are centrally approved by the European Medicines Agency, pricing and reimbursement remain national responsibilities. Every European healthcare system applies its own combination of procurement rules, physician incentives, substitution policies, reference pricing mechanisms, and tender procedures. 

These structural differences create markedly different erosion curves. 

In tender-driven markets, prices may decline sharply following competitive procurement rounds. Countries relying primarily on reference pricing may experience more gradual reductions. Elsewhere, free-pricing mechanisms or negotiated reimbursement agreements can produce entirely different pricing trajectories for the same molecule. 

Published data has consistently shown that biosimilar uptake, savings, and patient access vary considerably between European countries despite identical regulatory approval. Medicines for Europe similarly reports that national policy choices remain one of the strongest determinants of biosimilar competition and long-term sustainability. 

This makes Europe less like a single market and more like a collection of distinct pricing environments. 

For analysts responsible for international pricing, the challenge is no longer understanding one country's pricing policy – it is understanding how dozens of different systems evolve simultaneously over time. 

Building a practical biosimilar erosion-tracking workflow 

An effective monitoring workflow begins by defining the products or therapeutic areas of interest rather than tracking individual price changes in isolation. 

Teams typically start by creating portfolios or molecule clusters before narrowing the analysis using filters such as: 

• Biologics 
• Orphan Medicines 
• Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) 
• Gene Therapies 

From there, the workflow generally includes four core steps: 

1. Establish a historical pricing baseline before biosimilar entry. 
2. Monitor launches of new biosimilars and subsequent price changes. 
3. Track reimbursement revisions and procurement events that alter effective pricing. 
4. Export results or integrate data into forecasting and business intelligence systems through APIs. 

Historical data is particularly valuable because biosimilar competition rarely follows a straight line. Initial launch discounts may be followed months later by reimbursement updates, additional competitors, or new tender rounds that significantly accelerate price erosion. 

This is precisely where manual spreadsheet tracking becomes difficult. Maintaining consistent historical data across multiple countries, price levels, and therapeutic areas quickly becomes resource-intensive. 

Platforms such as Ex-PRICE streamline this workflow by combining historical pricing data dating back to 2015 with daily updates, customizable portfolios, advanced therapeutic filters, automated alerts, export capabilities, and API integration across more than 50 countries. 

Worked example: Adalimumab shows why price erosion must be tracked over time 

Adalimumab remains one of the clearest examples of how biosimilar competition can reshape pricing – and why monitoring a single published price is rarely enough. Following the European loss of exclusivity of Humira® in October 2018, numerous biosimilars entered national markets, but the resulting price erosion varied considerably across Europe. 

While the molecule was identical, the pricing outcome depended on each country's procurement model, reimbursement policies, and purchasing practices. 

Figures are based on publicly available analyses and reported market observations. Actual transaction prices may differ because of confidential commercial agreements and subsequent pricing revisions. 

The timing of these changes is equally important. The most significant price reductions did not necessarily occur immediately after biosimilar launch. In many markets, additional competitors, reimbursement revisions, contract renewals, and successive tender rounds continued to reshape pricing over the following months and years. 

This highlights one of the biggest challenges in biosimilar price monitoring: a single price snapshot rarely tells the full story. Two countries may appear to have similar published prices today, while their historical pricing trajectories – and therefore their competitive dynamics – are fundamentally different. 

For pricing and market-access teams, this is where historical, multi-country datasets become essential. Monitoring price evolution over time, comparing ex-factory, wholesaler, and reimbursed price levels, and normalizing prices by DDD provides a much more accurate picture of biosimilar competition than relying on isolated national databases or manually maintained spreadsheets. 

Who should care? 

For pharmaceutical pricing and market access teams, biosimilar price erosion directly influences launch sequencing, international reference pricing, forecasting, and lifecycle management decisions. 

For wholesalers, cross-country price compression may create implications for procurement strategies, inventory planning, and parallel trade opportunities. 

For payers and health authorities, benchmarking multiple price levels across countries provides additional context when evaluating reimbursement decisions and monitoring competitive market performance. 

Across all three groups, the common challenge is the same: tracking biosimilar competition consistently across multiple European markets using reliable historical data. 

Moving beyond spreadsheets 

International biosimilar pricing has become too dynamic to monitor effectively using disconnected national databases or manually maintained spreadsheets. Successful benchmarking increasingly depends on combining standardized DDD comparisons, multiple price levels, historical trends, reimbursement changes, and broad international coverage within a single workflow. 

Ex-PRICE was built to support exactly this type of analysis. The platform combines data from more than 100 official and commercial sources, includes over 1.5 million pricing records, provides historical data dating back to 2015, delivers daily updates and automated alerts, and enables users to analyze prices across more than 50 countries through customizable portfolios, advanced filters, exports, and API integration. 

Request a demo 

If your team monitors biosimilar competition across multiple European markets, the challenge is no longer finding data – it is bringing together the right data in a way that supports informed pricing decisions. 

Request a demo of Ex-PRICE to see how historical pricing, DDD benchmarking, reimbursement information, and automated monitoring can simplify biosimilar price erosion analysis across your portfolio. 

Sources 

1. IQVIA. The Impact of Biosimilar Competition in Europe. January 2026, available at: https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/library/white-papers/2026/iqvia-the-impact-of-biosimilar-competition-in-europe-2026-01-26-forweb.pdf 
2. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Biosimilar medicines: Overview, available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu 
3. Medicines for Europe. Biosimilar Medicines, available at: https://www.medicinesforeurope.com 
4. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD Index and Guidelines, available at: https://www.whocc.no 
5. Moorkens E, Vulto AG, Huys I, et al. Policies for biosimilar uptake in Europe: An overview. PLOS ONE, available at:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29284064/ 
6. Rémuzat C, Kapuśniak A, Caban A, et al. Supply-side and demand-side policies for biosimilars: An overview in 10 European member states. Journal of Market Access & Health Policy, available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28740617/ 
7. Barbier L, Simoens S, Vulto AG, Huys I. European stakeholder learnings regarding biosimilars: Part I—Improving biosimilar understanding and adoption. BioDrugs, November 2020,available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40259-020-00452-9