At-home blood tests: which startup is ahead?

Which startups really count as at-home blood testing companies?

We count eight serious competitors, split between blood samples people collect themselves and conventional blood draws brought to their homes.

LetsGetChecked, Everlywell, SiPhox Health, and Thriva sell self-collection products. The customer collects a capillary sample, usually from a finger or the upper arm, and sends it to a laboratory. Function Health, Superpower, InsideTracker, and Lifeforce mainly use venous blood, with a phlebotomist visiting the customer where home service is available.

Those two models belong in the same broad market because they compete for the same preventive-testing budget. Still, we keep the distinction visible throughout the comparison. A five-minute self-collection kit offers more convenience, while a venous draw can support a much broader panel.

Function now qualifies more clearly than it did a year ago. It acquired mobile-phlebotomy company Getlabs, giving members a direct route to blood collection at home or work. Before that deal, most Function customers used Quest locations, which made the company a comprehensive testing platform but only partly an at-home one.

We excluded Getlabs as a separate competitor because it is now owned by Function. Tasso and Sprinter Health provide collection infrastructure rather than owning the consumer testing relationship. Mito Health sells some home kits, but its comprehensive panels mainly send users to partner laboratories. Neko Health, Prenuvo, and Fountain Life require clinic visits or imaging facilities, placing them in the wider preventive-health market rather than this narrower race.

Funding totals remain approximate. LetsGetChecked publicly reports $263 million, while startup databases sometimes count around $285 million. SiPhox estimates range from $31.9 million to $35.4 million depending on whether grants and its latest extension are included. We use rounded figures rather than pretending these private-company totals are exact.

Startup	Main at-home model	What it currently sells	Approximate funding raised
Function Health	Visiting phlebotomist	160+ annual lab tests, clinician review, health-data platform	$350 million
Everly Health / Everlywell	Self-collected kits	More than 30 targeted home tests and broader lab-based testing	$330 million
LetsGetChecked	Self-collected kits	Diagnostic and wellness tests, laboratories, telehealth and enterprise programs	$263 million
Superpower	Visiting phlebotomist	100+ biomarkers, health records, recommendations and treatment marketplace	$42 million
SiPhox Health	Upper-arm self-collection	Up to 59 biomarkers, trend tracking and personalized recommendations	About $35 million
InsideTracker	Optional visiting phlebotomist	Blood analysis connected to nutrition, fitness and wearable data	$17.5 million
Thriva	Finger or upper-arm collection	More than 75 available markers, doctor review and repeat testing	$17.1 million
Lifeforce	Visiting phlebotomist	50+ biomarkers, clinician consultation and longevity coaching	$12 million

Is Function Health already the company to beat?

Yes, Function Health currently leads the broad at-home blood testing market, with LetsGetChecked close enough to keep the contest open.

Function’s position changed when it acquired Getlabs. It already had hundreds of thousands of paying members, 160+ annual lab tests, a $365 membership, and a large Quest network. It now owns a mobile-collection business that can bring licensed specialists to customers, removing the most obvious weakness in its home-testing offer.

Function also says its members have completed 70 million individual lab tests. At 160 tests per annual membership, that volume equals roughly 438,000 complete 160-test panels, although repeated measurements and different panel sizes prevent us from turning it into an exact member count. The number still confirms that Function is operating far beyond the pilot stage.

LetsGetChecked remains stronger in several parts of the actual home-testing workflow. It has served 15 million patients and more than 5,000 organizations, while controlling manufacturing, logistics, laboratory analysis, clinical support, and telehealth. Function coordinates a broader consumer-health experience, whereas LetsGetChecked has spent more than a decade learning how to deliver and process samples at scale.

The gap is real, but still fairly narrow. Function leads on current consumer momentum, panel breadth, recurring membership, capital, and its expanding preventive-health platform. LetsGetChecked leads on accumulated home-testing volume, enterprise delivery, laboratory control, and regulatory experience. Everlywell forms a clear third tier, followed by several smaller companies that lead individual niches.

If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest digital health market report.

Who has built the biggest real home blood testing business?

LetsGetChecked still has the largest documented home-testing operation, although Function appears to have the bigger recurring consumer business now.

LetsGetChecked’s 15 million-patient figure covers many years, countries, testing categories, and large enterprise programs. It also includes the exceptional testing demand created during the pandemic. Even with those qualifications, no other company publishes a comparable number tied specifically to patients served through an integrated home-health platform.

Function’s membership model is economically more revealing. TIME reported hundreds of thousands of paying members. Even the lowest normal interpretation, 200,000 members, would produce $73 million in annual membership billings at the current $365 price before discounts, testing costs, home-draw fees, scans, and other services. That calculation is ours rather than a disclosed revenue figure, but it shows why Function has moved ahead commercially.

Everlywell says one in 86 US households received an Everlywell test during 2024, equivalent to roughly 1.2% of American households in a single year. That is a more useful measure than its broader claim of having transformed care for 60 million people, which may include people reached through employers, partners, clinical programs, and digital health information.

Thriva provides the clearest adoption number among the smaller companies, with more than 200,000 customers. SiPhox instead reports one million biomarkers tested. If every test contained the maximum 59 biomarkers, that would represent about 17,000 panels; the actual number will be higher because customers choose different panel sizes. Superpower and Lifeforce disclose too little customer data for a serious scale comparison.

Which startup is moving fastest right now?

Function is moving fastest now, while Superpower is the smaller challenger putting the most pressure on prices.

Sacra estimates that Function grew from roughly 40,000 members to more than 200,000 within twelve months, a fivefold increase. The estimate is external rather than company-audited, but it fits Function’s later statement that it serves hundreds of thousands of paying members.

The company has also widened its product unusually quickly. It acquired Ezra to add MRI and CT scans, bought Getlabs to bring medical collection into homes, and then acquired SuppCo to connect laboratory results with supplement information. Its $298 million Series B gave it enough capital to pursue all three moves without abandoning its core testing product.

Superpower is following a more aggressive pricing playbook. Its annual membership now costs $199, compared with about $500 when Business Insider covered the company’s Base acquisition. That is a headline price reduction of roughly 60%. The company has also acquired Base and Feminade, expanded into treatments and peptides, and raised a total of about $42 million.

What Superpower has not shown is how many customers accepted the offer. A low price can speed adoption, but it can also produce expensive blood testing with thin margins. Without member counts, repeat-testing data, or revenue, we can confidently call Superpower fast-moving but cannot yet call it large.

Thriva has been active lately in a quieter way. Its new Compass program moves the company from occasional test sales toward three testing rounds per year, doctor consultations, wearable connections, and ongoing guidance. It is a sensible attempt to increase repeat usage rather than constantly finding another one-time buyer.

If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest digital health market report.

Who has a finished product, and who still has a science project?

LetsGetChecked, Everlywell, Function, and Thriva sell mature services today; SiPhox is the clearest case where the available product and the long-term technology remain separate.

LetsGetChecked has already built manufacturing, shipping, laboratory, physician-support, and prescription capabilities. Its current products return results in roughly two to five days after laboratory processing, and its platform handles consumer testing as well as large health-plan and employer programs.

Function also sells a finished service, but it reaches maturity through established venous testing rather than a new collection invention. Quest performs much of the testing, licensed specialists can now handle home draws, and Function organizes the results, clinician review, recommendations, and longitudinal record.

SiPhox’s EasyDraw service is commercially available. Customers collect blood from the upper arm in about five minutes, send the sample through FedEx, and receive results from an accredited laboratory. Its more ambitious silicon-photonic analyzer, which aims to produce rapid results inside the home, is still presented through a waitlist. Customers today are buying a mail-to-laboratory service.

Superpower also has a working service, with home collection and more than 2,000 partner laboratory locations. Its uncertainty comes from commercial proof rather than product readiness: the service exists, but the company has not disclosed enough usage to show how smoothly it works at high volume.

Who can test the most from a single visit at home?

Function currently offers the broadest home-draw program, Superpower offers the strongest low-price challenge, and SiPhox leads when customers want to collect the sample themselves.

Function includes 160+ annual lab tests, completed across an initial assessment, follow-up testing, and selected on-demand measurements. The word “tests” deserves attention: several tests may form one panel, and some measurements appear again later in the year. Still, the product covers substantially more ground than a normal targeted home kit.

Superpower advertises 100+ biomarkers from one venous draw. Home collection adds $119 to its $199 annual membership, bringing the first at-home experience to $318. It covers blood counts, metabolic health, lipids, thyroid function, hormones, vitamins, iron, and inflammation.

SiPhox can test up to 59 biomarkers through an upper-arm sample collected without a phlebotomist. Thriva now offers more than 75 markers across its product range, although no single self-collected panel necessarily includes all of them. InsideTracker measures up to 48 biomarkers, while Lifeforce tests more than 50 through a visiting phlebotomist.

Everlywell’s 360 product covers 83 biomarkers but requires an appointment at Quest. It is useful as a price and breadth benchmark, though it does not qualify as an at-home collection product. Everlywell’s genuine home catalog consists mainly of smaller tests built around one question, such as cholesterol, HbA1c, thyroid function, hormones, or vitamin status.

Company	At-home collection	Headline breadth	Current customer cost
Function Health	Visiting specialist	160+ annual lab tests	$365 per year, plus location-dependent home fee
Superpower	Visiting phlebotomist	100+ biomarkers	$199 per year plus $119 home collection
SiPhox Health	Five-minute upper-arm collection	Up to 59 biomarkers	Starts at $99; larger panels cost more
Thriva Compass	Finger or upper-arm collection	More than 75 available markers	£480 yearly for three personalized rounds
Lifeforce	Visiting phlebotomist	50+ biomarkers	Premium program with consultation and coaching

Which company makes collecting blood at home least annoying?

SiPhox currently offers the easiest genuine self-collection process, while home phlebotomy remains the safer choice for people who want a large panel without handling blood themselves.

SiPhox’s EasyDraw device attaches to the upper arm and collects the sample in around five minutes. There is no finger-pricking and no need to squeeze drops into a narrow tube. Live collection support is available, although the customer must return the sample through FedEx on the same day.

Thriva offers both finger-prick and upper-arm collection options. The experience depends on the panel: some tests require more than one tube and roughly ten drops of blood. Many customers manage that easily, while people with poor circulation or a fear of blood may struggle to produce a usable sample.

A visiting phlebotomist removes that uncertainty. Function, Superpower, Lifeforce, and InsideTracker can collect enough venous blood for broader testing in one appointment. The customer must choose a time, be inside the service area, and usually pay an additional fee, but failed collection becomes much less likely.

LetsGetChecked is working on a better middle ground. Its ImPress collection device received FDA 510(k) clearance as a professional-use blood lancet. The company describes it as an alternative to conventional finger-pricking, although the existing clearance does not yet turn ImPress into a nationwide, unsupervised consumer device.

For a customer who wants to complete everything alone, SiPhox has the best experience today. For a customer who values reliability and breadth, a ten-minute visit from a phlebotomist is usually the easier route in practice.

If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest digital health market report.

Can we trust these at-home blood test results?

We can trust selected at-home blood tests when the collection method has been validated for the specific biomarker; the category as a whole does not deserve a blanket accuracy claim.

Venous draws performed by a licensed professional use the same basic collection route found in ordinary clinical testing. Function, Superpower, Lifeforce, and InsideTracker therefore avoid many of the problems caused by tiny capillary samples, although laboratory methods and the clinical usefulness of each test still need scrutiny.

Self-collected capillary blood has become much more credible. A recently published study found that mailed capillary samples produced results comparable with venous samples for HbA1c, creatinine, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol. Another study examining several blood self-collection devices concluded that concordance must still be evaluated systematically before broad clinical use. The method works well for some measurements and less consistently for others.

Shipping adds another variable. Heat, delays, clotting, insufficient volume, and poor technique can affect a sample before it reaches the laboratory. Companies therefore need stability studies and clear rejection rules in addition to an accredited laboratory.

LetsGetChecked has the strongest regulatory evidence in the group. The FDA granted De Novo authorization to its Simple 2 system for at-home collection of samples used to detect chlamydia and gonorrhea. That approval covers a specific product and specimen type, but it shows that LetsGetChecked has successfully taken a home-collection workflow through a demanding regulatory process.

Thriva says it compares its capillary assays with venous collection and tests sample stability under expected postal conditions. SiPhox uses CLIA- and CAP-accredited laboratories, but its mail-in program is sold for wellness purposes and relies on laboratory-developed testing. Accreditation strengthens confidence in laboratory operations without proving that every offered marker performs identically after home collection.

Who gives you the most useful testing for the money?

Superpower is currently the best bargain for a broad venous test collected at home, while Function offers more listed testing per membership dollar when a partner laboratory visit is acceptable.

Superpower costs $199 per year, and home collection currently adds $119. Dividing the $318 first-year at-home cost by 100 listed biomarkers gives a rough price of $3.18 per biomarker. That calculation treats every biomarker as equally valuable, which they plainly are not, but it gives us the right order of magnitude.

As seen above, Function charges $365 for 160+ annual tests. That comes to about $2.28 per listed test before adding home collection. Some tests are repeated, and a laboratory “test” is not always equivalent to one Superpower biomarker, so the ratios should guide rather than decide the comparison.

Everlywell 360 costs $399 for 83 biomarkers, or about $4.81 per marker, but the blood draw happens at Quest. SiPhox starts at $99 for a smaller panel and charges more as customers add coverage. Thriva’s Compass membership costs £480 for three testing rounds, averaging £160 per round before valuing the doctor consultations and ongoing support.

Turnaround also affects value. LetsGetChecked generally reports results in two to five days after laboratory processing. Thriva says some results are ready within 48 hours of laboratory receipt. Superpower usually takes about a week, while SiPhox quotes several days after the sample is shipped. These clocks begin at different stages, so a two-day laboratory turnaround can still become a longer door-to-result experience.

Which startup can handle a national rollout without falling apart?

LetsGetChecked has the best proof that it can run large home-testing programs, while Function now owns the collection network it previously lacked.

As pointed out above, LetsGetChecked has served 15 million patients and more than 5,000 organizations. The company controls manufacturing, logistics, laboratory analysis, telehealth, physician support, and prescription fulfillment. Few competitors can replace all of those functions without assembling several outside vendors.

Its position inside Fuze Health adds pharmacy and care-delivery capabilities inherited from the combination with Truepill and Alto. That broader group can send a kit, process the test, connect the customer with a clinician, and deliver medication through one organization. The structure is especially useful for health plans and employers trying to close specific care gaps rather than sell general wellness memberships.

As we saw previously, Function acquired Getlabs after building its business around Quest locations. The deal brings a nationwide network of mobile specialists and gives Function more control over collection at home and work. The integration is recent, however, so we do not yet know how much of Function’s testing volume will move into homes or whether appointment coverage will be consistent in every region.

Everlywell has the next-best consumer distribution network. The company sells more than 30 home tests, reaches employers and health plans, and increasingly acts as the access layer for outside diagnostic companies. Its partnership with GRAIL is a good example: Everlywell brings the consumer relationship and testing logistics, while GRAIL supplies the underlying cancer-detection product.

Thriva has proven that it can run a sizeable UK service, but international expansion would require new laboratories, medical oversight, and regulatory arrangements. SiPhox’s current operation is much smaller and depends on same-day sample shipping. Superpower’s partner network looks scalable on paper, though the absence of published collection volume makes that judgment less certain.

Startup	Best evidence it can scale	Strongest distribution advantage	Main bottleneck today
LetsGetChecked	Millions of patients and thousands of organizations	Integrated labs, logistics, telehealth and enterprise sales	Current growth and revenue are not disclosed
Function Health	Hundreds of thousands of members and 70 million completed lab tests	Quest access plus the acquired Getlabs mobile network	Home-service coverage and economics remain unclear
Everlywell	Roughly one in 86 US households received a test in 2024	Large consumer brand and diagnostic partnerships	Broadest panel still requires a laboratory visit
Thriva	More than 200,000 UK customers	Strong direct consumer brand in Britain	Limited geographic reach
Superpower	More than 2,000 partner laboratory locations	Very low entry price	No published member or testing volume

What can Function or LetsGetChecked do that rivals cannot easily copy?

LetsGetChecked owns more of the physical testing workflow, while Function now combines the richest consumer health record with the strongest expansion budget.

LetsGetChecked’s advantage comes from years of operational work that customers rarely see. Manufacturing kits, managing specimen returns, rejecting unusable samples, running accredited laboratories, supporting abnormal results, and serving health-plan clients require different teams and systems. A new competitor can design a dashboard quickly; rebuilding that operating stack takes much longer.

Function’s defensibility comes from repeated data collected under one membership. Its 70 million completed lab tests give it a large longitudinal dataset, and the company is adding imaging, home collection, wearables, medical records, and supplement information around the same customer account. A person who has accumulated several years of results becomes less likely to move to a cheaper service that cannot import or interpret the history equally well.

Function’s weakness is that many individual components remain available elsewhere. Quest can serve other startups. Phlebotomy networks can sign additional clients. Health dashboards and AI explanations are becoming cheaper to build. Function’s advantage depends on combining these pieces better and retaining customers, rather than owning an exclusive laboratory technique.

Everlywell has built a different barrier through distribution. Its consumer recognition, health-plan relationships, and ability to launch partner diagnostics make it a useful channel for companies that have developed a test but lack a national direct-to-consumer operation.

SiPhox may eventually develop the hardest technology to reproduce. Its proposed silicon-photonic analyzer aims to test biomarkers inside the home within minutes. The device is still on a waitlist, so we give that potential moat little weight in the current ranking.

InsideTracker deserves more credit than its ranking initially suggests. Its platform has accumulated years of blood, nutrition, fitness, and wearable data. A peer-reviewed retrospective study covering more than 20,000 users found that use of the platform was associated with improvements across blood and fitness-tracker measurements. The design cannot prove that InsideTracker caused those improvements, but few competitors have published outcome research at that scale.

If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest digital health market report.

Is all that funding producing a better company?

LetsGetChecked has the clearest proof that funding became infrastructure; Function has deployed capital fastest lately, but its return on that spending remains hidden.

The eight companies in our core comparison have raised approximately $1.06 billion combined. Function, Everly Health, and LetsGetChecked account for about $943 million, or nearly 89% of the total. Capital is heavily concentrated in the same three companies that occupy the top of our ranking, although the order of their funding totals does not match the order of their operating strength.

LetsGetChecked used its capital to build or acquire laboratories, manufacturing, logistics, genomics, telehealth, and enterprise-testing capabilities. The company’s current patient and organization counts show that those assets have handled large volumes.

Function raised most of its money much more recently. Its $298 million Series B was followed by rapid expansion into imaging, mobile collection, supplements, and medical intelligence. That strategy could produce a much larger health platform. It could also increase costs and management complexity before the original blood-testing model has disclosed retention or profitability.

Everly Health has raised about $330 million, yet its most visible consumer product remains a catalog of targeted tests. Its broad reach is impressive, but the company publishes little current revenue, growth, or repeat-purchase data. That makes it harder to see how efficiently the capital has been used.

Superpower has raised $42 million and cut its headline membership price sharply. The company may be buying rapid adoption, but we cannot calculate funding efficiency without a member count. SiPhox has raised around $35 million, while its most ambitious analyzer remains pre-commercial. Some of that capital is therefore funding future technology rather than today’s testing business.

Funding helps explain who can survive a costly expansion. It does not rescue weak collection economics, poor retention, or a product that customers only try once.

How much of the evidence can we actually trust?

The ranking is strong at the top and much less certain from fourth place down, because the largest companies disclose operating scale while the younger ones mainly disclose features and prices.

Product prices, laboratory locations, panel descriptions, FDA decisions, acquisitions, and announced funding rounds are relatively easy to verify. Peer-reviewed studies provide stronger evidence for collection accuracy or health outcomes, although a study of one device or biomarker cannot validate an entire platform.

Company scale figures need more care. Function reports individual lab tests, LetsGetChecked reports patients, Everlywell reports households and people reached, Thriva reports customers, and SiPhox reports biomarkers. These units describe different things. Placing them in one leaderboard would create precision without comparability.

Some claims are especially broad. Everlywell’s 60 million people transformed may include users reached through several products, employers, partnerships, and digital programs. SiPhox’s one million biomarkers could come from tens of thousands of panels. Function’s 70 million measurements include many tests performed for the same member. We use those numbers as evidence of activity, not as interchangeable customer counts.

The missing information is more revealing. None of the companies publishes a complete set of revenue, customer acquisition cost, gross margin, home-draw volume, sample rejection rate, retention, repeat-testing frequency, and enterprise backlog. Function and Superpower also do not disclose how much home collection costs them compared with a partner-lab visit.

So which at-home blood testing startup is actually ahead?

Function Health is ahead overall today, with LetsGetChecked as the only challenger close enough to take the lead back.

Function now combines hundreds of thousands of paying members, the broadest mainstream panel, a low annual price, rapid growth, 70 million completed lab tests, and an owned route into home collection. The Getlabs acquisition removed the biggest reason for keeping Function below a vertically integrated home-testing company.

LetsGetChecked remains the better pure testing operator. Its laboratories, manufacturing, logistics, regulatory history, and enterprise relationships have been tested across millions of patients. It could return to first place if Fuze Health shows fresh revenue growth, rising repeat usage, or a major expansion of its self-collected blood products.

Everlywell ranks third because its consumer distribution is enormous, but its broadest blood panel still sends people to Quest. Thriva ranks fourth through proven customer adoption, a mature UK operation, and a credible move toward repeated annual testing.

Superpower takes fifth place. Its $199 price, broad panel, acquisitions, and treatment marketplace make it the fastest-moving smaller challenger. We keep it below Thriva until it publishes a meaningful customer count.

SiPhox ranks sixth overall while winning the narrower contest for the best customer-operated blood collection experience. Its position would rise sharply if testing volume grows and its home analyzer becomes a cleared, mass-produced product.

InsideTracker has stronger published outcome evidence than several companies above it, though blood collection remains one part of a broader analytics product. Lifeforce offers a polished premium service but has disclosed too little scale to compete with the leaders.

The lead is clear, but it is not locked in. Function is now the clear number one in broad preventive blood testing from home. LetsGetChecked remains number one in integrated home-testing operations. SiPhox leads true comprehensive self-collection, while Thriva leads that model in the UK.

Rank	Startup	Why it holds this position
1	Function Health	The best current combination of membership scale, growth, test breadth, pricing, data, capital and newly acquired home-collection capacity
2	LetsGetChecked	The most proven end-to-end home-testing operator, with unmatched patient volume, enterprise delivery, laboratories and regulatory experience
3	Everlywell	Exceptional US consumer distribution and a broad test catalog, held back by limited transparency and an 83-marker flagship product that requires Quest
4	Thriva	More than 200,000 customers, mature UK operations, doctor-reviewed results and a stronger recurring program now taking shape
5	Superpower	The most aggressive price challenger, with 100+ biomarkers and rapid product expansion, but little disclosed evidence of adoption or retention
6	SiPhox Health	The best comprehensive self-collection experience and promising proprietary technology, still operating at a much smaller commercial scale
7	InsideTracker	Strong longitudinal analysis and unusually good published outcome evidence, though at-home collection is an add-on rather than the core product
8	Lifeforce	A high-quality premium service with home phlebotomy and clinical support, but limited evidence of scale and a harder model to expand cheaply

If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest digital health market report.

Who is the author of this content?

NEW MARKET PITCH TEAM

We track new markets so founders and investors can move faster

We build living "market pitch" documents for emerging markets: AI, synthetic biology, new proteins, and more. Instead of outdated PDFs or hallucinated LLM answers, our clients get a clean, visual, always-updated view of what's really happening: key players, deals, regulations, and signals that matter. Learn more about us.