The market for research antibodies is extremely competitive and fragmented, thus cost-leadership, differentiation and niche (focus) strategies are very difficult to examine and formulate in Michael Porter's terms. Porter's generic strategies: cost-leadership, differentiation and niche have become a dominant paradigm in competitive business environments. Porter's model has been shown to be outdated; i.e. he states that the combination of low-cost and differentiation strategies is unlikely to produce a sustainable competitive advantage. In today’s market, however, to establish a sustainable competitive advantage, many businesses especially those distributing research antibodies, pursue a combination of generic strategies simultaneously. This thesis aims to refuel the debate about what specific circumstances constitute an appropriate differentiation and pricing strategy. By popularizing the idea that differentiation and low-cost are incompatible, Porter's legacy may have served to misdirect corporate strategists. This thesis develops a framework that aims to identify the contingencies under which the above propositions hold for the research antibody industry.