Cultivar Names vs Laboratory Profiles

A cultivar name such as the ones in the cannabis cultivar directory is an identity claim. A laboratory profile is a measurement of one sample. Treating the first as if it were the second is one of the most common mistakes in cannabis information. Evidence labels used here: mixed, insufficient evidence, marketing claim. This is education only; no product is recommended.

Two different kinds of information

For how to read the numbers, see how to read a cannabis COA.

Do plants with the same name share genetics?

Not reliably. A 2019 study examined 30 named cultivars from dispensaries in three states. The authors reported genetic inconsistencies within strains, with most strains containing at least one genetic outlier, though many looked fairly stable once outliers were removed. They warned that consumers could be given inconsistent products. [1]

A 2015 study of 124 samples found strain names often do not reflect a meaningful genetic identity. [2] The researchers who ran the 2019 study also wrote that cannabis was excluded from USDA regulation at that time and distinctive varieties were left out of registration, which makes them hard to verify. [1] (That statement was made in 2019 and rules may have changed; this page does not give a current status.)

Does the same name give the same chemistry?

Results are mixed.

• Some stability. In Washington state data, cannabinoid levels of commercial flower and concentrates were relatively stable over time, and popular strains differed from each other. [3]
• Strong limits. The same study found that different laboratories reported systematically different cannabinoid content, and these differences persisted after controlling for plausible confounders. [3]
• Name vs chemistry at scale. In 89,923 samples from six states, commercial labels were poorly or inconsistently aligned with chemistry; the study looked at category labels and chemotypes. [4]
• Hundreds of names. A 2012 study notes more than 700 cultivars were described and that it was unclear whether the common classification reflects relevant chemical differences. [5]

Do lab numbers on a label match what is in the package?

Two studies compared label values with independent testing. These are US results from specific areas and times, not a universal rate.

• A 2023 Colorado Front Range study of 23 flower samples from 10 dispensaries found about 70% of samples were more than 15% lower in THC than the label, using HPLC. [6]
• A 2025 Colorado study of 277 products from 52 dispensaries found 96.0% of concentrates and 56.7% of flower were within 15% of the labeled THC; observed THC was significantly lower than labeled in both product types. [7]

One merchant's or one batch's result is never universal, and a marketing percentage is not an independent laboratory finding. We did not find a reliable, sourced "typical" cannabinoid or terpene value for any named cultivar, so none is stated here. Where cultivar pages cite a measurement they give batch, laboratory and date.

Putting it together

• Treat a name as a label of origin or marketing, not proof of composition.
• Treat a COA as the record of one batch. It does not prove that every other batch matches, or that a product will work for a health goal. See why a COA does not prove effectiveness and laboratory variability, batch numbers and test dates.
• For effects, see why labels do not reliably predict effects.

Safety

Because composition can differ from the name or label, the intoxicating strength of a product can differ from what the name or label suggests. That is a real safety issue for impairment, anxiety and accidental overconsumption. See adverse effects and, for children, accidental child and pet exposure. In a US emergency call 911 or Poison Help at 1-800-222-1222.