Nevada
Cannabis Testing Data
Every completed compliance test in Nevada's regulated cannabis market, pulled from the state's own seed-to-sale record. 513,539 packages, 237 named producers, 10 named labs. Jan 2020 - Feb 2026.
Source: Nevada cannabis lab-testing records (Metrc), producers and labs named exactly as the state filed them. Data through February 2026 · built June 2026.
Nevada's grow room is open. The concentration is in who grades the test.
On the producing side, Nevada comes back competitive: 237 named producers, an operator concentration index (HHI) of just 172, and a top-ten that controls only 31% of tested volume. The cohort that already held the market when this data opens in 2020 has watched its share fall from 100% to 54.4%. That is not a frozen market. The concentration sits one layer down — in the labs. The undisputed fact comes first: three of ten labs handle 52.6% of every test. The lab concentration index (1344) is closing on the Justice Department's 1,500 "moderate" line from below — not over it yet — but the share is the point, and the pass rate every producer's product is graded against has climbed from 89.45% to 98.58% while the major labs diverge by 6.2 points on how often they pass a package. Nevada opened the grow room. It concentrated the grade.
producer concentration index (HHI). Below 1,500 is "unconcentrated" — Nevada's growing tier is genuinely open, with 237 named producers in the record.
the first-window cohort's share of tested volume, 2020 to today — a steady decline as new producers enter, not the locked incumbency seen in capped markets.
of all testing runs through three labs — NV CANN LABS alone handles 19.98%. The lab tier is where Nevada concentrates.
spread in pass rate across the major labs — a 87.29% lowest observed pass rate, a 93.45% highest. The labs do not test the same producers or the same product mix, so the spread is where to look, not what was found.
The first-window cohort is ceding share
Share of all tested volume held each quarter by the producers already operating when this record opens in the first quarter of 2020. It starts at 100% by definition and falls to the low-to-mid 50s — the signature of a market letting new entrants in, not one holding them out.
One honest caveat on the word "incumbent." Entry here means a producer's first appearance in this testing record, and the record opens in January 2020 — Nevada's adult-use market began selling in mid-2017. So the 2020 cohort bundles every producer already operating when the data window opens; it is a first-window cohort, not a true day-one license class. The decline in its share is real. The 100% floor at the left edge is an artifact of where the data starts.
Each cohort of producers, against the share it captured
Producers grouped by the year they first appear in the testing record. Bars show how many producers each cohort added; the points show the share of all tested volume that cohort holds today. Unlike a capped market, later cohorts in Nevada do capture share — the 60 producers who entered after 2020 together hold 13.9% of tested volume, and the single largest producer by volume only reaches 6.84%.
Read across, not up: this is not a timeline. It is the same question asked of each entry class — how many came in, and how much of the market they reached. The volume still concentrates in the early cohort because it has had the most time, but no single producer dominates and the trend line runs toward dispersion.
Market Share by Entry Cohort
Share of each quarter's tested volume by the year each producer first appeared in the record. Stacked to 100% — watch the first-window band give ground to later cohorts.
By test count, not weight. Entry = first appearance in this record, which opens January 2020.
Testing Volume by Entry Cohort
Absolute package counts per quarter, by entry cohort. The total height is overall market volume; the bands are who's producing it.
By test count, not weight. The 2025 fall-off reflects labs exiting the public record mid-year (cause still being confirmed), not a production decline. 2026 is partial (through February).
Product Category Mix Over Time
Share of testing volume by product category, per quarter. Stacked to 100%.
By test count, not weight. Flower (Buds) carries the dataset; concentrate's share grows as the market matures.
Six years of Nevada's own testing record describe a producing tier that works the way a competitive market is supposed to: many growers, low concentration, falling incumbent share, no single dominant firm. Ask whether the growing side of Nevada cannabis is competitive, and this record says yes. Say it plainly, because it is not the answer in every state.
The structure worth watching in Nevada is not who grows the flower — it is who grades it. Every one of those 513,539 packages had to pass through one of ten labs, and three of them touch more than half of all volume. The lab is the gate. It decides what reaches a shelf. The major labs diverge by 6.2 points on how often a package passes — from 87.29% at DPL NV LLC to 93.45% at MA & ASSOCIATES LLC. That spread marks where to look, not what was found. A lab that grades more concentrate — which passes far higher than flower — will post a higher pass rate than a lab that grades mostly raw plant material, with zero misconduct by anyone. The labs do not test the same producers or the same product mix, and that alone can drive the gap. This page does not allege that any lab did anything. It marks the seam a regulator would check first — a producer's choice of vendor sits next to it, and the program-wide pass rate is climbing toward 98.58% while it does.
A note on "concentration"
Two concentration numbers sit on this page and they point in opposite directions. The producer HHI is 172 — deeply unconcentrated, well under the Justice Department's 1,500 line. The lab HHI is 1344 — closing on that 1,500 threshold from below. Read together, they are the whole story: Nevada opened its growing tier and let it stay open, while the testing tier that grades every grower's work consolidated into a handful of firms. A market can be competitive where you plant and concentrated where you're graded. Nevada is both.
Year over Year
The pass rate climbed from 89.45% in 2020 to 98.58% by 2026. Some of that is a market growing up — producers learning the panels and dialing in their rooms. But a climb that steep, ending near 98.58%, has at least three readings: cleaner flower, a testing tier grading on a gentler curve, or simple composition. The lab table below carries the third: the labs whose volume collapses out of the record in 2025 sit at the lower-pass-rate end — DPL NV at 87.3%, and the single highest-volume lab, at 88.5% — so part of the 2025 climb is the mechanical effect of stricter graders leaving, not flower or grading at all. The same curve fits all three, and Nevada's own lab-level data is the only way to tell them apart.
The sharp drop in tested-package counts through 2025 is not primarily a market-size story. Nevada's taxable cannabis sales fell only about 8.6% over the same period — from $829.2M to $757.7M across Nevada's 2024 and 2025 fiscal years (which run July 1–June 30), per the state's own cannabis tax data — far less than the drop in tested packages. The decline is concentrated in a small number of labs that stop appearing in the state's public testing record in mid-2025 — including the single highest-volume lab — while the other labs keep operating and do not absorb the lost volume. We are working to confirm the cause before characterizing it. Read 2025–2026 testing volume as provisional and likely incomplete; it does not reflect a contraction in production or testing demand on anything like the scale the package counts suggest. The lab-concentration, market-share, and pass-rate findings elsewhere on this page are measured within each period and are not affected.
Pass rate by year
Share of completed packages that passed all required panels.
Failure rate by year
Package-level failure rate per calendar year. The mirror image of the pass-rate climb.
Volume tested by year
Completed package tests per year (2026 is a partial year, through February). The 2025 drop reflects labs exiting the public record mid-year, not a market contraction — taxable sales fell only about 8.6% over the same window. See the note above.
Testing & Safety
90.31% of completed packages pass. 49,786 failed. When Nevada cannabis fails, it fails on one thing far more than any other: microbial contamination — yeast, mold, and pathogenic bacteria account for 45,093 of the failing packages, 91% of all failures, against 1,914 residual-solvent and 1,028 pesticide failures. Unlike some states, Nevada's record names the failing category, so this breakdown is real, not inferred.
What actually fails
Packages with at least one failed result, by test category. Nevada records the failing panel, so these categories are named, not estimated.
Pass rate by product type
Completed packages by product category.
| Category | Packages | Pass rate |
|---|---|---|
| Buds | 288,694 | 88.95% |
| Concentrate | 102,658 | 97.59% |
| ShakeTrim | 70,056 | 83.36% |
| InfusedEdible | 28,637 | 95.43% |
| InfusedNonEdible | 9,139 | 94.41% |
| Plants | 8,944 | 82.99% |
| Other | 5,411 | 92.33% |
Raw plant material carries the contamination risk: whole plants pass lowest at 82.99%, shake/trim at 83.36%, and buds at 88.95% — while concentrate, where extraction strips microbial load, passes at 97.59%.
Labs
Ten labs are named in the record. Three — NV CANN LABS, ERP, and 374 LABS — handle 52.6% of all volume. Pass rates run from 87.29% to 93.45% across the majors. The labs do not test the same population of producers, so the spread needs context. But in a market leaning on this few labs, the spread is the number to watch.
Lab market share
Share of completed packages, by testing lab.
Pass rate by lab
Share of packages passing, by lab. The gap between the strictest and most lenient major lab is 6.2 points.
Lab market share over time
Packages tested per lab per quarter. Full quarters only. Watch the market consolidate as several early labs exit and volume gathers into the top three.
All labs
Full named-lab table. Pass rate and remediation rate side by side — read them together.
| Lab | Packages | Share | Pass rate | Remediation | Active |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NV CANN LABS LLC | 102,582 | 19.98% | 88.53% | 1.003% | Jan 2020 – Jan 2026 |
| ERP LLC | 84,254 | 16.41% | 90.95% | 2.37% | Jan 2020 – Feb 2026 |
| 374 LABS LLC | 83,090 | 16.18% | 91.34% | 3.298% | Jan 2020 – Feb 2026 |
| G3 LABS LLC | 75,269 | 14.66% | 91.41% | 2.451% | Jan 2020 – Feb 2026 |
| DPL NV LLC | 45,938 | 8.95% | 87.29% | 2.841% | Jan 2020 – Feb 2026 |
| MA & ASSOCIATES LLC | 31,243 | 6.08% | 93.45% | 5.838% | Jan 2020 – Feb 2026 |
| CANALYSIS NEVADA LLC | 26,826 | 5.22% | 89.39% | 1.603% | Jan 2020 – May 2023 |
| CERTIFIED AG LAB LLC | 26,397 | 5.14% | 92.05% | 0.405% | Jan 2020 – Jul 2023 |
| DB LABS LLC | 23,196 | 4.52% | 88.43% | 4.307% | Jan 2020 – Dec 2025 |
| LETTUCETEST LLC | 14,744 | 2.87% | 91.68% | 0.794% | Feb 2020 – Nov 2025 |
Remediation rate is the share of a lab's packages that carried remediated product — flower that failed, was treated, and was retested. Read it alongside pass rate: a lab can show a high pass rate because the product it sees is clean, or because failures are being routed through remediation. The record shows the numbers; it does not explain them.
Failure Analysis
9.69% of completed packages fail — and that rate has collapsed over the program's life, from 10.55% in 2020 to 1.42% in 2026. The program-wide number buries an enormous spread between producers: 12 logged a perfect record over meaningful volume, while 200 have at least one failure. Nevada names every producer, so the spread has a name attached — not an anonymized code.
Overall pass / fail
513,539 completed packages. Package-level overall result.
Failure rate by year
Package-level failure rate per calendar year — the clearest downtrend in the dataset.
Failure rate by producer — the spread the headline hides
Every named producer with at least 20 packages on record, ranked by package failure rate. The program average is 9.69%, but producers range from well above it down to a hard zero. Same market, same labs, same rules — different outcomes. Product mix drives much of that: microbial failure is a raw-plant problem, so a producer running more flower or outdoor material fails the microbial panel more than one running concentrate — whole plants pass at 82.99% and shake/trim at 83.36%, against 97.59% for concentrate. This chart ranks outcomes, not operators. Bars over the program average are drawn in rust.
This is overall pass/fail at the package level. Nevada's record names the failing category — the "what actually fails" chart above breaks it out — but the producer-level view here is the overall result, which is what determines whether a package can reach a shelf.
Producers
Every named producer in the record. Search, sort, and open any one to see when it entered, how much it has tested, where it sends its product, and how it performs.
Tap a producer above to open its detail.
Download the Data
This is the public record, made usable — nothing more. Here's the cleaned, deduplicated, package-level dataset behind every chart on this page — 513,539 rows. Check our math.
Package-level dataset (CSV)
One row per completed package — producer, lab, date, category, pass/fail, remediation flag. 513,539 rows, gzip-compressed (opens in Excel, pandas, or any unzip tool).
Download nv_packages.csv.gz →How this was built
Source files, the dedup rules, the finished-test filter, the failing-category mapping, and every known caveat — including why there's no potency section.
Read the methodology →Data through February 2026 · built June 2026.