The Real Cost of a Cannabis Gummy: Azuca’s CEO on Manufacturing Margins and Scale

Kim Sanchez Rael explains why ingredient prices tell only part of the story, how infusion technology affects production economics, and what manufacturers should test before scaling.

For cannabis manufacturers, the cost of an infusion ingredient is only one part of the economics of producing a gummy. Drying time, product waste, labor, shelf stability, and consumer response can all affect whether a formulation makes financial sense.

That is the argument Kim Sanchez Rael, CEO and co-founder of Azuca, makes as cannabis brands weigh the benefits of fast-acting infusion technologies against the costs of adopting them.

“The question shouldn’t be, ‘What does the infusion cost?’ It should be ‘What value does it create for the business and the consumer?'” Rael told IgniteIt.

Azuca develops cannabinoid infusion technology for brands and manufacturers. Its TiME INFUSION system is designed to deliver predictable onset while integrating into existing production processes. The company says its formulations have powered more than 800 million infused servings through over 150 partner licenses.

For operators, Rael argues, the relevant calculation begins with the finished product.

Beyond the Ingredient Price

Manufacturers comparing infusion systems often focus on the price of the ingredient. Rael says that approach can overlook costs elsewhere in production.

“Operators need to evaluate the entire manufacturing process, including yield, drying time, throughput, waste, equipment requirements, labor, and shelf stability,” she said.

Those variables become particularly important in gummy manufacturing, where formulation changes can affect moisture content, texture, and production efficiency.

Some emulsion-based systems introduce additional water, Rael explained, potentially creating challenges for manufacturers working with high-solids formulations.

“Gummy manufacturing is particularly sensitive to formulation changes. Water activity, Brix, gel structure, texture, and shelf stability all matter,” she said.

Azuca positions its molecular encapsulation technology as an alternative designed to preserve finished-product characteristics while delivering fast-acting effects.

Rael cautioned, however, that every formulation requires validation with the manufacturer’s own recipes, equipment, and quality-control systems.

A Licensing Model Built Around Manufacturer Control

Azuca’s business model also addresses how manufacturers incorporate infusion technology into their operations.

Rather than requiring a supplier to handle every production run, the company licenses its proprietary formulations, supplies ACTiVATOR ingredients, and supports implementation.

Manufacturers prepare their infusions on-site using pre-programmed equipment, adjusting dosing and production volumes to their requirements.

“Our modular licensing model gives manufacturers direct control over their infusions,” Rael said.

The arrangement leaves partners responsible for their finished products and applicable regulatory requirements.

According to Rael, the model is intended to make the technology scalable across state-regulated markets without requiring significant upfront capital investment.

For manufacturers operating in multiple jurisdictions, that structure offers a way to standardize an infusion process while retaining control over production. Whether it improves margins depends on the economics of each operation.

What the Consumer Research Shows

Azuca has also examined how infusion technology affects the finished gummy, rather than evaluating cannabinoid delivery alone.

In a blind-panel comparison cited by Rael, participants evaluated gummies made with TiME INFUSION against professionally formulated nano-emulsion gummies of the same flavor and dose.

According to the company, 86% of participants rated the taste of the TiME INFUSION gummies as good or very good, compared with 60% for the nano-emulsion comparator.

Rael said the TiME INFUSION gummies also received higher scores for texture, effects, overall liking and purchase intent.

The findings are relevant to manufacturers considering product differentiation, although the comparison does not establish that the same results would occur across every formulation, competitor or production environment.

Azuca has separately reported human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic research examining cannabinoid onset and performance.

For Rael, these findings should inform product-development decisions alongside manufacturing data.

“Fast onset is important, but taste, texture, predictable performance, and the overall consumer experience are equally critical,” she said.

What Manufacturers Should Demand Before Switching

Rael recommends that brands request documentation covering ingredient specifications, contaminant testing, manufacturing quality systems, and stability.

They should also evaluate potency consistency, dosing performance, and the effect of an infusion system on their existing formulations.

Regulatory requirements add another consideration. Manufacturers remain responsible for ensuring that finished products satisfy the testing and labeling rules in each state where they operate.

A pilot production run should therefore measure more than whether a gummy delivers the intended dose.

Rael recommends examining taste, texture, onset, yield, throughput, drying time, waste and production efficiency, alongside stability over the product’s intended shelf life.

“A gummy that performs well on day one must also maintain its integrity throughout its intended shelf life,” she said.

Azuca did not specify a universal testing period. The appropriate validation process will depend on the product and its intended shelf life.

When Is a Product Ready to Scale?

Rael describes her approach to commercialization with a simple principle: “nail it and scale it.”

Before expanding production, she wants manufacturers to demonstrate that a formulation can be produced repeatedly, maintain its characteristics over time, and deliver acceptable economics.

“I would consider a system ready for broader commercialization when the manufacturer can demonstrate consistent dosing, preserved product integrity, stable performance over time, solid economics, and a repeatable process that can scale reliably,” she said.

That places the commercial decision beyond any single performance claim.

A faster-acting gummy may offer product differentiation, but manufacturers still need to establish whether the formulation can be produced consistently, sold profitably, and maintained at scale.

For Rael, the investment case rests on the relationship between production costs and the value of the finished product.

The decisions facing cannabis manufacturers extend beyond infusion technology to broader questions of production costs, capital investment, and profitability. These issues will be part of the conversation at IgniteIt’s Capital & Policy Summit in Washington, D.C., on November 18, 2026, where cannabis executives, investors, and policymakers will examine the financial and regulatory forces shaping the industry’s future.

This sponsored Partner Insight was produced in partnership with Azuca.