Beer ODM and OEM are often confused, but for technical evaluators, the two have fundamental differences in formula ownership, process control depth, intellectual property ownership, and other dimensions. This article focuses on the 5 key criteria for making a determination, helping you make precise decisions about the appropriate contract manufacturing model. --- ### I. Different Starting Points for Formula Development: “Delivering Results” or “Building Together” The essence of OEM is standardized production outsourcing—the customer brings a mature beer formula, physicochemical parameters, and sensory standards, while the factory follows the specifications to complete ingredient dosing, fermentation, filtration, and filling. During technical evaluation, the focus is on verifying process reproduction capabilities: Can the factory consistently control the original wort gravity within ±0.2°P, alcohol content deviation within ≤±0.1%vol, and bitterness value IBU fluctuation within ≤±3 across different batches? Does it have the ability to activate, preserve, and manage the subculturing of the relevant yeast strains? ODM, on the other hand, starts with flavor logic. For example, if a customer proposes “a low-sugar, highly fruity peach sour beer suited to the taste preferences of young Asian women,” the ODM team must work backward to analyze the requirements: Which types of lactic acid bacteria and brewing yeast should be co-fermented to create a mild acidity? Should cold maceration combined with centrifugal separation be used to retain volatile esters? Should sugar-level control rely on enzymatic hydrolysis termination or low-temperature sedimentation? This process inevitably involves multiple rounds of pilot testing (5L/20L/500L scale-up), sensory triangle tests, and accelerated stability testing (changes in turbidity after hot storage at 45℃/7 days). Technical evaluators must confirm whether the ODM provider has a complete flavor engineering database, such as records for more than 300 mature beer formulations and processes, and whether it has mastered HPLC/GC-MS tracking of key flavor compounds, rather than relying solely on experience-based blending. --- ### II. The Depth of Process Intervention Determines the Scope of Quality Risks OEM production lines generally operate with fixed process packages: parameters such as the mashing temperature curve, primary fermentation temperature gradient, and maturation time cannot be adjusted. Technical evaluation should verify whether the “production process flow chart” in the factory’s SC certificate covers the customer’s specified beer type, with particular attention to cold-zone equipment. For example, does the -2℃ beer storage tank have independent temperature-control zoning? This is essential to the haze stability of German wheat beer. ODM requires dynamic process adaptation. Taking oyster peptide beer as an example, active peptides need to be added during the later stage of fermentation, which directly challenges the traditional logic of aseptic filling: peptides are prone to oxidative inactivation, so DO must be controlled at ＜0.05mg/L. At the same time, metal-ion-catalyzed browning must be avoided, and the passivation level of the inner walls of stainless-steel pipelines must reach Ra≤0.4μm. These unconventional process intervention points significantly increase the risks of microbial contamination, flavor deviation, and precipitation. Technical evaluation cannot focus solely on SOP documents; it must include an on-site review of the cleaning validation report for the CIP system, including ATP fluorescence testing data, as well as the retention period for online DO monitoring records at critical points. --- ### III. Intellectual Property Ownership Implies the Risk of Long-Term Technical Dependence Under the OEM model, the customer owns the complete intellectual property: the formula, process parameters, and testing methods are all customer assets. The factory is only authorized to use them, and the authorization expires when the contract ends. Technical evaluation should focus on reviewing the definitions of “background intellectual property” and “derivative intellectual property” in the confidentiality provisions. For example, if a customer-provided yeast strain acquires higher ethanol tolerance after being propagated and optimized by the factory, who owns the resulting mutant strain? The ODM model naturally generates jointly developed intellectual property. Suppose a customer commissions the development of hyaluronic acid beer, while the factory provides the sodium hyaluronate addition process, including a formulation of stabilizing dispersants, and the customer provides end-consumer taste preference data. If ownership of the “hyaluronic acid beer stabilization system” patent created in this process is not clearly agreed upon in the contract, it may lead to disputes over technical barriers later. Technical evaluators should involve the legal department and require the ODM provider to provide examples of intellectual property allocation in previous similar projects. They should also verify whether its R&D management system supports version-based formula traceability, such as Git-style change logs. --- ### IV. Compliance Responsibility Boundaries Affect the Technical Validation Process For export orders, an OEM factory is only responsible for production compliance: it is sufficient to have SC certification, a HACCP plan, and export food filing qualifications. Label design, nutrition-fact declarations, and allergen statements are the customer’s responsibility, while the factory only carries out printing. ODM extends to end-to-end compliance. For example, when developing zero-sugar beer for an EU customer, the ODM provider must proactively supply an EN 13697 disinfection efficacy report proving that microbial control in the filling environment meets the required standards. It must also complete the acceptable daily intake (ADI) calculation and verification for EFSA-approved sweeteners, such as erythritol. Technical evaluators must confirm whether the ODM provider has a cross-border regulatory response mechanism: Can it issue a label compliance opinion within 48 hours that meets the requirements of FDA 21 CFR Part 101 or Japan’s JAS Act? Has its testing laboratory obtained CNAS accreditation rather than merely operating under internal corporate controls? --- ### V. Flexible Production Capability Reflects Actual Technical Redundancy “Minimum order quantity of 1 barrel” is often promoted as an ODM advantage, but technical evaluators need to look beyond the number to assess the substance. What truly supports small-batch customization is a modular mashing system, with switchable 300L/1000L/3000L ingredient-dosing units; a multi-channel yeast activation platform supporting the simultaneous cultivation of 8 yeast strains; and a digital label printing line capable of producing different batch numbers/QR codes without plate making. If the so-called “flexibility” depends on manual mold changes, manual filling, and offline labeling, consistency in physicochemical indicators between batches will inevitably be inferior to that of large-scale production lines. More importantly, the logic of process scale-up must be verified. One ODM provider claims that it can directly scale up a 50L pilot beer to 20KL mass production, but does not explain whether intermediate-scale testing at 500L has been conducted. Technical evaluators should request its “scale-up factor attenuation rate” data: Does alcohol content deviation increase exponentially with volume? Is the amount of higher alcohols in a 20KL tank more than 17% higher than that in a 50L tank? These are the hard indicators for judging the credibility of its technical capabilities. --- Technical evaluation is not about choosing the label “ODM” or “OEM,” but about determining how deeply your product goals require joint process development, how extensively risks must be shared, and how substantially intellectual property must be coordinated. When a customer asks for “an oyster peptide beer capable of passing Singapore HSA health-claim certification,” the answer is no longer found in the contract type. It lies in whether the ODM provider has established a stability database for marine bioactive peptides, whether it possesses the technical response capabilities required for HSA submissions, and whether it is willing to share the original testing records of similar products that have already been approved. Genuine technical decision-making always begins with an honest assessment of the boundaries of capabilities.