Botox vs. Dysport vs. Xeomin vs. Daxxify: Why Units Do Not Compare

Botox Cosmetic, Dysport, Xeomin and Daxxify all use a number followed by the word “Units.” That shared label makes the numbers look comparable.

They are not. Each product’s FDA prescribing information says its potency units are specific to that product’s preparation and assay or test method. Each label also says those units cannot be compared with or converted into units of another botulinum-toxin product.

The short answer — United States, FDA labels checked July 29, 2026: 20 Botox Cosmetic Units, 50 Dysport Units, 20 Xeomin Units and 40 Daxxify Units are the respective labeled total doses for glabellar lines. They are not four measurements on one common scale, and the labels do not establish a conversion ratio.

This comparison is for clinicians, clinic operators and readers evaluating product claims. It maps the current FDA labels; it does not recommend a product, prescribe a dose or establish which treatment is appropriate for an individual.

A “Unit” is a product-specific potency measurement

A botulinum-toxin unit is a measure of biological activity produced through a potency assay. It is not a universal amount such as a milligram or milliliter.

The literal reason matters. The Botox Cosmetic label says its cell-based potency assay is specific to Botox and Botox Cosmetic. The Dysport label describes a Dysport-specific assay and reference material. The Xeomin label and Daxxify label make the same product-specific boundary explicit.

That is why simple arithmetic fails. Dividing one brand’s labeled dose by another brand’s labeled dose produces a number, but not an FDA-established equivalence. A ratio calculated from the labels would ignore the different assays that define the units in the first place.

The labeled doses show the problem

Glabellar lines—the vertical frown lines associated with corrugator and procerus muscle activity—provide the cleanest area of overlap across all four FDA labels.

Swipe horizontally to compare every column.

Product	Nonproprietary name	FDA-labeled cosmetic indication(s)	Labeled glabellar-line dose	Unit statement
Botox Cosmetic	onabotulinumtoxinA	Adults: glabellar lines, lateral canthal lines, forehead lines and platysma bands	20 Units across five sites	Specific to its preparation and assay; not comparable or convertible
Dysport	abobotulinumtoxinA	Glabellar lines in adults younger than 65	50 Units across five sites	Not interchangeable, comparable or convertible
Xeomin	incobotulinumtoxinA	Adults: glabellar lines, horizontal forehead lines and lateral canthal lines	20 Units across five sites	Specific to its preparation and assay; not comparable or convertible
Daxxify	daxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm	Glabellar lines in adults	40 Units across five sites	Specific to its preparation and test method; not interchangeable, comparable or convertible

These are label facts, not a dosing guide. The indication, treated muscles, patient population, injection pattern and current full prescribing information all matter. Equal numbers across two product labels do not mean equal potency, effect or clinical use. Unequal numbers do not mean that one product is stronger, weaker, better or worse.

The formulations are not identical

All four are botulinum neurotoxin type A products, but the FDA labels identify different active ingredients and formulation details.

• Botox Cosmetic: onabotulinumtoxinA supplied as a vacuum-dried product. Its label describes a neurotoxin complex with accessory proteins, human albumin and sodium chloride.
• Dysport: abobotulinumtoxinA supplied as a lyophilized powder. Its label describes a neurotoxin complex containing hemagglutinin and non-toxin non-hemagglutinin proteins, with human serum albumin and lactose; it may contain trace amounts of cow’s milk proteins.
• Xeomin: incobotulinumtoxinA supplied as a lyophilized powder. Its label says the active 150 kDa neurotoxin is separated from accessory proteins; the vial also contains human albumin and sucrose.
• Daxxify: daxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm supplied as a lyophilized powder. Its label describes a 150 kDa toxin without accessory proteins and a formulation containing the 35-amino-acid peptide excipient RTP004, histidine components, polysorbate 20 and trehalose.

Those differences are factual characteristics of the labeled products. They do not, by themselves, prove a clinically meaningful advantage, predict an individual’s result or create a valid unit conversion.

The cosmetic indication is not the same across brands

A broad statement such as “FDA approved for wrinkles” strips away the treatment area and population that make the approval meaningful.

As of the evidence date, all four labels include temporary improvement of moderate-to-severe glabellar lines. The overlap stops there. Botox Cosmetic’s label also includes lateral canthal lines, forehead lines and platysma bands in adults. Xeomin’s current label includes glabellar, horizontal forehead and lateral canthal lines in adults. Dysport’s cosmetic indication is glabellar lines in adults younger than 65. Daxxify’s cosmetic indication is glabellar lines in adults.

Some of these products also have non-cosmetic therapeutic indications. Those indications have their own populations, doses and administration instructions. A dose from cervical dystonia, spasticity, blepharospasm or another therapeutic section should not be carried into an aesthetic comparison.

Separate trials do not create a head-to-head contest

The labels describe randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, but they are separate development programs—not one trial that randomized people among all four products.

• The Botox Cosmetic glabellar-line section describes two identically designed studies of 20 Units versus placebo in adults aged 18 to 75. Its co-primary Day 30 measures used an investigator severity rating and a separate subject global assessment of change.
• The Dysport label describes three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled glabellar-line studies. Its Day 30 “treatment success” definition required both investigator and subject assessments to reach none or mild with at least a two-grade improvement.
• The current Xeomin label includes two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of simultaneous treatment of glabellar, horizontal forehead and lateral canthal lines, as well as separate evidence in its labeling history for glabellar lines.
• The Daxxify label describes two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled glabellar-line trials. Its primary Week 4 endpoint required both investigator and subject ratings of none or mild and at least a two-point improvement from baseline.

Even when studies use similar words, comparison requires the same population, intervention, injection pattern, comparator, endpoint definition, assessment time and analysis rules. These programs differ on several of those dimensions.

What the trials show: each label reports evidence supporting its own FDA-labeled use against its own study comparator.

What they do not show: a direct four-product ranking for efficacy, onset, duration, adverse events or patient preference.

Duration claims need the same discipline

“Which one lasts longest?” sounds like a single factual question. It is actually a request to compare how separate studies defined response, when they measured it, how they handled retreatment and discontinuation, and which patients they enrolled.

A label may describe response over time for its own product. That is useful product-specific evidence. It does not turn unlike trials into a controlled head-to-head comparison. The same caution applies to onset: an observation in one label cannot be ranked cleanly against a differently designed program without a suitable comparative study.

Any duration claim should therefore name the product, indication, endpoint, time point and evidence design. “Lasts longer” without those details is stronger than these four labels collectively support.

Adverse-event percentages are not directly portable

All four prescribing-information documents carry a boxed warning about distant spread of toxin effect. The warnings describe symptoms consistent with botulinum-toxin effects that may occur hours to weeks after injection; swallowing and breathing difficulties can be life-threatening.

The labels also report product- and indication-specific adverse reactions. Those percentages should not be lined up as if they came from one trial. Each label explains that clinical trials occur under varying conditions and that adverse-reaction rates from one drug’s trials cannot be directly compared with rates from another drug’s trials.

Shared warning language does not make the products interchangeable. Different reported percentages do not establish that one product is safer. A valid safety comparison would need aligned populations, doses, definitions, follow-up and ascertainment, plus attention to sample size and uncertainty.

How to read a four-brand comparison

A responsible comparison keeps five questions visible:

1. Which exact product? Brand and nonproprietary names prevent one toxin’s record from being assigned to another.
2. Which indication? Glabellar lines, lateral canthal lines, forehead lines, platysma bands and therapeutic uses are not interchangeable contexts.
3. Which source? Use the current FDA application record and full prescribing information, not a conversion chart detached from its provenance.
4. Which endpoint and time point? “Response” can mean different combinations of investigator and subject ratings.
5. Was the evidence head-to-head? Separate placebo-controlled trials can support separate approvals without deciding a comparative winner.

The FDA’s ClinicalTrials.gov search can help locate registered study records, but a search result is a route into the evidence—not proof that trial designs or results are comparable.

The bottom line

Botox Cosmetic, Dysport, Xeomin and Daxxify units do not sit on one common ruler. The current FDA labels explicitly reject cross-product comparison and conversion because each unit is defined through a product-specific preparation and potency method.

The practical next step is not to calculate a ratio. It is to verify the exact product, indication and current FDA label, then route individual treatment and dosing questions to a qualified, licensed healthcare professional who can assess the person and the full prescribing information.