Beyond end‑use, the market is also stratified by type, which describes the physical or virtual construct of the teaching model. Live animal models dominate with an estimated 55 % share, because they deliver authentic physiological responses and enable hands‑on training that cannot be replicated by surrogate systems. In‑vitro simulation kits, comprising organ‑on‑a‑chip and tissue‑culture assemblies, capture roughly 25 % of revenue; they appeal to institutions seeking reduced animal use while maintaining relevant biochemical pathways. Computerized training systems, including virtual‑reality (VR) and augmented‑reality (AR) platforms, account for the remaining 20 %, driven by cost‑efficiency, scalability, and the growing emphasis on humane research practices. Each type contributes distinct cost structures, regulatory considerations, and adoption curves, which together define the total addressable market. The proportional weighting of these types informs investment decisions and product‑development roadmaps, reinforcing the importance of a nuanced market taxonomy for stakeholders.