Types captures the physical form factor and energy-delivery architecture of shock-wave generators, influencing capital expenditure, service revenue, and clinical efficacy claims. Tabletop systems dominate with a 55 % share; their fixed applicator arms and integrated cooling circuits support repeatable focal depth, a prerequisite for publishable efficacy data and subsequent reimbursement approvals. Trolley-Mounted units, at 30 %, serve facilities that share equipment across rooms; detachable hand-pieces and swappable therapy heads reduce cross-contamination risk but add ~USD 7 k annual calibration cost. Portable devices, comprising 15 %, employ lightweight piezoelectric crystals and lithium-ion power modules, enabling off-site use at satellite clinics; however, lower peak pressure (≤ 70 MPa) restricts them to maintenance protocols rather than primary therapy. The market taxonomy therefore shows type selection is a trade-off between initial capex, throughput flexibility, and evidence requirements, with tabletop systems commanding average selling prices 1.8× higher than portable alternatives yet delivering the lowest five-year total cost when discounted service revenues are included.