At-home fertility testing: which startup is ahead?

Which at-home fertility testing startups are we comparing?

The real at-home fertility testing race today includes Inito, Mira, Hertility, Oova and Proov.

We include startups that measure reproductive hormones from samples collected at home and turn those measurements into fertility or ovulation insights. Inito, Mira, Oova and Proov mainly track changing hormone levels across a menstrual cycle. Hertility uses a finger-prick blood sample to provide a broader laboratory assessment with clinical interpretation.

These products compete for some of the same customers, although they do not answer exactly the same questions. A urine monitor helps someone find fertile days and check whether ovulation followed. Hertility is closer to a reproductive-health screening service for someone investigating symptoms, ovarian reserve or possible hormonal problems. Urine monitors and blood-based screening answer different questions, which is why we spell out what counts in our report on digital health.

We exclude calendar-only fertility apps, temperature wearables, general blood-testing platforms, male-only semen tests and fertility-financing companies. We also exclude Modern Fertility because Ro acquired it in 2021 in a deal reportedly worth more than $225 million. It remains a useful benchmark, but no longer an independent competitor.

We also leave out Eli Health for now. The Canadian company, which says it has raised $20 million, opened pre-orders for a saliva progesterone test in January 2026. It reads one hormone at a time and is not yet a full cycle monitor, but it is the newcomer to watch.

Private funding totals remain approximate, and we found no new round for Mira, Hertility, Oova or Proov in 2026. Tracxn reports about $28.1 million for Mira, $14 million for Hertility, $12.5 million for Oova and $9.7 million for Proov. The Times previously placed Hertility slightly higher, at $15.7 million. Inito says its December 2025 round brought total equity funding to $45 million, a figure TechCrunch also reported.

Startup	What the startup currently sells	Approximate funding raised
Inito	A wireless urine monitor measuring estrogen, LH, PdG and FSH on one strip	$45M
Mira	A reusable urine analyzer with several wand options, including the four-hormone Ultra4 and a cortisol kit on waitlist	$28.1M
Hertility	Laboratory-analyzed finger-prick hormone tests with a doctor-written report and follow-up care	$14M–$15.7M
Oova	App-read urine testing for estrogen, LH and PdG, with fertility and perimenopause kits and clinician reports	$12.5M
Proov	App-read full-cycle hormone tests, including an FDA-cleared PdG ovulation-confirmation test	$9.7M

Is there a clear leader in at-home fertility testing right now?

Inito is still ahead overall, but Mira is now close enough that the two are almost level.

Inito combines the largest disclosed funding total, a relatively cheap four-hormone product, more than 200,000 couples served and solid published validation. Mira is more international, now claims a larger user base and has added more products this year, but its consumables cost much more and its user figures do not agree with each other.

The gap is now narrow. Inito has raised about 60% more capital than Mira, yet Mira has spent 2026 doing the visible work: a Health Canada licence in August, a cortisol kit in September and a care partnership with Allara. Inito’s public activity since its round has been quieter: a wider app and reader rollout and a growing data count, now more than 40 million hormone data points by its own figures.

Behind them, Hertility still has the strongest laboratory and clinical-care pathway. Oova has gone furthest in making continuous hormone data usable by outside clinicians. Proov owns the clearest narrow regulatory advantage through its FDA-cleared PdG test.

Does Mira now have more customers than Inito?

Mira now claims more users than Inito, but Inito still has the cleaner and more believable customer figure.

Inito says more than 200,000 couples have used its monitor, and it adds more than 10 million tests taken. That is a single, stable claim that describes customers rather than app registrations. It has not been audited, but it has not moved around either.

Mira’s figure keeps changing depending on the page. Its shop says more than 250,000 women in 115 countries. Its August 2026 Canada release says more than 300,000 women. Its September 2026 cortisol release says more than 350,000 women use its app. The three numbers do not agree, and app users are not the same as people who bought an analyzer.

So Mira may well have the larger installed base now, but we cannot say so with confidence. What is clear is that Inito no longer has a large lead in disclosed customers.

Hertility says it has helped more than 600,000 women. That number likely includes people who only took its free online assessment; the company earlier reported about 520,000 assessments and 72,000 test kits ordered. The kits remain the more meaningful commercial figure.

Oova now claims more than 20,000 customers on its homepage, up from the 10,000 users it cited earlier. Its provider page reports more than 30,000 cycles tracked and more than three million hormone data points. It remains much smaller than the top two.

Proov says it has helped more than 50,000 couples since 2017 and promotes more than 5,000 conceptions. Neither number tells us how many people use it today, so we treat Proov’s scale as undisclosed.

Which at-home fertility testing startup has the strongest commercial traction?

Inito still has the strongest volume engine, while Mira earns more from each engaged customer and is now widening its routes to market.

Both businesses sell a reusable reader followed by disposable tests, which creates natural repeat revenue. Inito’s starter kit is listed at $119 with 15 strips as a launch offer, against a $169 reference price. Regular 15-strip refills cost $49, and the app has no monthly fee. A customer who tracks six average cycles could spend roughly $364 at the offer price, or about $414 at the reference price.

Mira starts higher. The Ultra4 kit starts at $249, another 20 wands cost $99 and 30 wands cost $139. Mira recommends 10 to 20 tests for a regular cycle and up to 30 for a longer or irregular one. That model generates strong revenue per customer, but it also asks customers to accept a much higher recurring bill.

Mira is now adding channels Inito does not show. Its Allara link sends users to in-network virtual care for PCOS, perimenopause and fertility in the US, and Mira says more than 3,000 healthcare professionals have chosen its product. Canada adds a new market with a regulator’s licence behind it.

Without audited revenue, we cannot tell which company collects more total sales. Inito’s model still has fewer obstacles because it reaches the same core use case at a much lower ongoing price. Mira’s model is now harder to dismiss because it sells into more places.

Hertility has the strongest alternative route to market. Irish Life Health has offered Hertility through insurance benefits, and the company sells testing and care packages to employers. A payer or employer can bring in many users at once, which makes these deals worth more than a branded awareness partnership.

Hertility’s model is also more expensive to run. Each order involves sample logistics, laboratory work, medical review and possibly specialist care. The Times reported accumulated losses of about £9.1 million in its latest detailed financial coverage. That does not make the model weak, but Hertility needs much more revenue per test than a company shipping app-readable strips.

Is Mira now moving faster than Inito?

Yes. In 2026, Mira has moved faster on products and markets, while Inito’s main advantage is still the money it raised in December 2025.

Mira has stacked several moves this year. In August 2026 it received a Class II medical device licence from Health Canada and started selling Ultra4 everywhere in Canada except Quebec. In September 2026 it opened a waitlist for its Cortisol Pattern kit, which measures urinary free cortisol on the same analyzer, with 20- and 30-wand packs. It also added a new early pregnancy test. Each step uses the hardware customers already own. A new test on hardware customers already own is the kind of step we classify as working, tested or still on paper in our report covering the digital health market.

That builds on Ultra4, which measures FSH, LH, E3G and PdG together and gives results in 16 minutes. Mira also cites a blinded study of 121 ovulatory cycles with 890 ultrasound scans; we have only the company’s summary of it, and the release itself says the findings should not guide clinical decisions.

Inito raised a $29 million Series B in December 2025, led by Bertelsmann India Investments and Fireside Ventures, bringing total equity funding to $45 million. It said the money would scale its platform and fund new tests built with AI-designed antibodies, including pregnancy and menopause tests. We found no public launch of those new tests so far, and no new customer figure beyond 200,000 couples.

Inito’s wireless reader now works on both iOS and Android, which removes the old phone-compatibility friction. That is useful execution, but it is less visible than a new market or a new test.

Oova has moved too. In July 2026 it partnered with Mamaya Health so members can join a perimenopause mental-health program, building on its Oura integration and its perimenopause kit. That strengthens its health-monitoring story from a small base.

Proov sells a broader full-cycle system than its original progesterone strip, plus a couples kit at $179.99, but we found no recent financing or disclosed adoption jump. Hertility joined NVIDIA’s Inception program, which helps product work but says little about market momentum.

On momentum, Mira is ahead. It is the company applying pressure now. Inito still has the bigger war chest, but it needs to turn that capital into visible launches.

Which at-home fertility testing startup has the most mature product?

Mira has the most mature product platform, although Inito still offers the cleaner package for people mainly trying to conceive.

Mira has run its reusable analyzer across several generations of disposable wands. Customers can choose two-hormone, three-hormone or four-hormone tests, and soon cortisol, while keeping the same reader. Ultra4 measures FSH, LH, E3G and PdG in one test, which puts Mira’s core hormone coverage level with Inito’s.

Mira works on iOS and Android and ships internationally from warehouses in the United States, United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, China and Australia. It now also holds a Health Canada licence and is FDA-registered. Product maturity includes these less exciting details: compatibility, inventory, replacement consumables and the ability to fulfill an order outside one home market.

Inito is simpler. One strip measures the four central hormones used to follow follicular development, the estrogen rise, the LH surge and the later PdG increase. Results arrive in about ten minutes. Someone buying Inito does not need to choose between several wand families or decide which hormones to test on which product.

Proov covers five hormone signals, but its FDA clearance applies specifically to its PdG ovulation-confirmation test rather than the entire platform. Its broader system also uses separate early-cycle FSH tests and multi-hormone strips, so the experience is less unified than Inito or Mira.

Oova measures E3G, LH and PdG through two daily strips read by a phone. It lacks FSH in its normal fertility kit, although its three markers cover the main sequence needed to find fertile days and check whether ovulation followed. It now sells the same format as a perimenopause kit.

Hertility can test up to 10 hormones through its laboratory service and includes clinical interpretation. It delivers a deeper snapshot but cannot show the daily movement of a cycle in progress.

Mira wins product maturity because it has the most developed platform, broad compatibility and the widest regulated availability. Inito is the more focused product, which explains why it grew so well with fewer extensions.

Which at-home fertility test has the strongest clinical evidence?

Inito still has the strongest published evidence for a complete multi-hormone home monitor, while Proov has the clearest FDA-reviewed claim.

A 2023 study in Scientific Reports tested Inito’s E3G, LH and PdG measurements against laboratory methods. The researchers reported average coefficients of variation of about 5% and an ovulation-confirmation rule with 100% specificity and an area under the curve of 0.98. Those results directly support the monitor’s central job: following hormone changes and checking whether ovulation occurred.

The paper has limits. It validated hormone measurement and cycle classification, not higher pregnancy or live-birth rates. Parts of the laboratory comparison used small groups; the ELISA check used 80 samples from three women. We can trust that the device measures useful hormone patterns without claiming that it solves infertility.

Proov received FDA 510(k) clearance, under file K191462, for an over-the-counter PdG test used as an aid in confirming ovulation. The FDA review describes analytical testing, clinical testing and a lay-user study. That gives Proov the strongest regulatory support for one narrow claim. It does not validate every score, supplement or recommendation now sold through Proov’s wider platform.

Mira has a peer-reviewed study comparing its monitor with Clearblue over several cycles. Mira missed 2% of LH peaks in that research, compared with 5% for the Clearblue monitor. Mira now also cites an ultrasound-referenced study of 121 cycles and claims up to 99.5% accuracy in hormone detection. Until the full ultrasound study is public, we treat it as company-reported, and Ultra4 is newer than the peer-reviewed work.

Oova says its urine measurements have a 99% correlation with serum testing. We found less public detail about its validation methods than for Inito’s paper or Proov’s FDA file, so we treat that percentage as company-reported.

Hertility’s credibility comes from UKAS-accredited laboratories, a doctor-written report and a CQC-regulated care pathway. That supports clinical handling and interpretation, although it does not give one simple performance number for every condition it screens.

Across the whole product, Inito still leads on evidence. For one narrowly defined regulatory claim, Proov is still ahead. Mira could close this gap quickly if it publishes the ultrasound study in a journal.

Which at-home fertility test gives customers the best value?

Inito still gives repeat users the best value, while Proov has the cheapest route into broad one-cycle testing.

Inito is listed at $119 with 15 strips as a launch offer, against a $169 reference price, followed by $49 for another 15. Mira’s Ultra4 kit starts at $249 with 20 wands, and a new pack of 20 costs $99. Oova has listed $159 for one cycle or $129 through its monthly membership; its site currently shows a 30% member discount but we could not confirm the exact current prices. Proov’s Complete system costs $99.99. Hertility charges £249 for its Advanced test and £199 for a version without the results call.

A simple six-cycle comparison shows the size of the gap. One Inito starter kit plus five refills costs about $364 at the offer price, or $414 at the reference price. Mira costs about $744 if one 20-wand box covers each cycle. Proov reaches roughly $600 if the user buys a complete kit every month. Oova lands around $800 at its last published prices. Actual spending will vary with cycle length, testing frequency and discounts, but the order of magnitude is clear.

Mira’s premium can make sense for someone who wants a broader hormone-health platform, wide availability and several wand options, including cortisol. Oova’s price is easier to defend when a clinician actively uses its reports. Hertility includes an expert call, a doctor-written report and a care plan, so comparing it only by test count would be misleading.

For someone tracking ovulation at home month after month, Inito is hard to beat on cost. Proov is attractive for a single cycle without buying a reader. Mira and Oova ask customers to value their extra platform or clinical features enough to accept a much larger bill.

Product	Approximate starting price	Typical repeat purchase	Our value judgment
Inito	$119 with reader and 15 strips (launch offer; $169 reference)	$49 for 15 strips	Best value for repeated quantitative tracking
Proov Complete	$99.99 for one full-cycle kit	About $99.99 per additional cycle	Lowest initial cost for broad hormone coverage
Mira Ultra4	From $249 with reader and 20 wands	$99 for 20 wands or $139 for 30	Strong product, but expensive over several cycles
Oova	$159 for one cycle (last published price)	$129 through monthly membership (last published price)	Worth considering mainly for its clinician-facing workflow
Hertility Advanced	£249 (£199 without the results call)	A new clinical test when needed	Higher price includes laboratory and medical services

Which fertility monitor works best for irregular cycles or PCOS?

Inito is still the best-value fertility monitor for irregular cycles, while Mira offers the deepest premium option and now a direct route to PCOS care.

Irregular cycles expose the weakness of basic ovulation strips. A single LH surge does not always mean that ovulation follows, and some people with PCOS have elevated or repeated LH patterns. Inito follows estrogen, LH and PdG across the cycle, so it can open the fertile window before the surge and then look for a progesterone-metabolite rise afterward. FSH adds information about early-cycle follicular activity.

Mira follows the same four hormones with Ultra4. Its app can recommend more tests for longer or unpredictable cycles, and Mira tells users with irregular cycles to consider 30 wands rather than 20. The 30-wand pack costs $139, so extra testing quickly raises the bill. Through Allara, US users can share their Mira data with a provider and dietitian focused on PCOS, which no other urine monitor here offers as clearly. Irregular cycles and PCOS are the kind of problem customers will pay to solve, and we look at which ones in our digital health market report.

Oova can also handle irregular patterns better than an LH-only strip because it measures estrogen, LH and PdG against each user’s baseline. Its reports are useful when a clinician wants to inspect several weeks or months of hormone movement. The missing FSH measurement and higher recurring price keep it behind Inito and Mira for most self-directed users.

Proov’s system separates two forms of LH, which the company says increases the chance of catching weaker surges. That could help some irregular cycles, but the claim needs independent validation before we give it the same weight as its PdG clearance.

None of these monitors can diagnose PCOS. A PCOS assessment considers cycle history, signs or laboratory evidence of androgen excess and, in some cases, ovarian appearance. Home hormone data may reveal an unusual pattern and help a clinician investigate it, but the app cannot make the diagnosis safely on its own.

We choose Inito for most irregular-cycle users because it combines four-hormone coverage with manageable repeat costs. Mira is the better pick when the user wants richer tracking plus a path to a clinician who will read the data.

Which at-home fertility testing startup is closest to real clinical care?

Hertility is still closest to real reproductive healthcare, while Oova and now Mira have built the strongest clinical bridges among daily urine monitors.

Hertility’s Advanced test includes a bespoke panel of up to 10 hormones analyzed in UKAS-accredited laboratories, a doctor-written report, a 30-minute specialist call and a care plan. Results can arrive in as little as six days. Customers can continue into appointments and treatment rather than receiving a chart and being left to read it alone.

Its distribution also looks more like healthcare than consumer electronics. Irish Life Health has offered Hertility in fertility benefits, and the company sells reproductive-health packages to employers, insurers and brokers. These channels can pay for testing and send people toward care before they reach a fertility clinic.

Oova still leads the urine-monitoring group on clinician workflow. Its provider page lists more than 600 practices using its free Oova360 platform, with more than three million hormone data points. Its own FAQ cites 100+ clinics, so the exact count is unclear. Clinicians can review trends directly rather than reading screenshots from a consumer app.

Mira has moved closer. It says more than 3,000 healthcare professionals have chosen it, and its Allara partnership gives US users in-network virtual visits where a provider reviews their Mira data. That is a real care pathway, though Allara’s team works only in the US.

Inito produces detailed charts that users can share with doctors, but the experience remains mainly consumer-led. Proov offers expert chat and coaching, although its mix of testing, supplements and proprietary scores sometimes blurs the line between medical guidance and product sales.

Hertility wins this comparison comfortably. Oova comes second because its product is built for repeated use by both patients and clinicians, with Mira now close behind.

Can Mira’s global reach beat Inito’s cheaper strips?

Not yet. Mira has the stronger international infrastructure, but Inito’s cheaper consumables still make it easier to add customers quickly.

Mira ships from warehouses in six countries and claims users in 115 countries. Its August 2026 Health Canada licence shows it can clear a new regulator and open a market. Its reusable analyzer already supports several consumable types, so Mira can add a use case, like cortisol, without replacing every customer’s hardware.

Inito has a simpler offer and cheaper consumables. Its wireless reader removed the old dependence on phone-specific attachments, which makes inventory and device support easier. With $29 million raised in December 2025, Inito can push a product that has already reached meaningful volume. The question is whether it spends that money on new markets and tests fast enough.

Proov has the lightest physical product. App-read strips are cheap to ship and need no electronic reader. That helps distribution but also makes the core format easy to copy. Proov’s regulatory history and software therefore carry more of its competitive weight than its hardware.

Oova also avoids a separate reader, yet its clinician-oriented service and high monthly price narrow its market. It ships its main products in the United States and Canada, well short of Mira’s coverage.

Hertility faces a different scaling problem. Each country can require new laboratory logistics, healthcare regulation, clinical staffing and treatment relationships. Its acquisition of Dutch testing company Grip opened a route into continental Europe, but expanding a medical service remains slower than mailing urine-test consumables.

Which at-home fertility testing startup has the strongest moat?

Inito still has the best all-round defense, while Mira and Oova own stronger advantages in specific areas.

Inito’s moat comes from combining things rivals can copy one by one but struggle to match together: four hormones on one strip, its own reader hardware, low refill costs, a large user base and published validation. A competitor can offer four hormones or a cheap strip; reproducing the full package is harder.

Inito is also developing antibodies with machine-learning methods. It argues these AI-designed antibodies can shorten the work of creating new home tests and unlock biomarkers that are hard to measure with standard assays. The technology is still commercially unproven outside its current product. It becomes a real advantage only if Inito launches several successful tests from the same platform.

Mira’s strongest assets are its installed analyzer base, wide fulfillment and its hormone data. Its shop now cites more than 1.7 million cycles behind its AI, a far larger figure than the 370,000 cycles it published before, with no explanation of the change. Its customers can move from fertility tracking to PCOS, perimenopause or stress tracking without changing platforms.

Oova’s defense comes from clinical relationships and dense longitudinal data. Its users generate many measurements each, and its provider dashboard makes those records easier to use during care.

Hertility has built a different dataset linking health assessments, laboratory results and clinical pathways. That could support better triage and earlier detection of reproductive conditions. Its value depends on showing that its models improve diagnosis or treatment, not just on collecting more records.

Proov’s clearest defense remains its FDA-cleared PdG claim. Clearance builds trust and takes time to reproduce, although another company can eventually pursue its own.

Inito has the broadest moat today. Mira’s platform is the one gaining ground, because every new wand type makes its analyzer harder to leave. Oova has the best chance of becoming hard to replace inside specialist clinical workflows.

Can at-home fertility tests really tell someone whether they are fertile?

No. No at-home fertility testing startup can determine whether someone is fertile or infertile from one hormone panel.

Urine monitors answer narrower questions. An estrogen rise can show that the fertile window may be opening. An LH surge suggests that ovulation is approaching. A later PdG increase supports the conclusion that ovulation occurred. These measurements can improve timing and reveal unusual cycles, but they do not examine fallopian tubes, sperm quality, egg quality, uterine factors, fertilization or implantation. Overpromising on what a test can show is a risk we rate by likelihood in our report on digital health.

Blood tests also have limits. AMH and FSH can give information about ovarian reserve and likely response to fertility treatment. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine says ovarian-reserve markers have performed poorly when used to predict natural conception, cumulative pregnancy or future infertility in women without proven fertility problems.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reaches a similar conclusion. AMH can help predict ovarian response during assisted reproduction, but current evidence does not support using one AMH result to predict how quickly a woman without diagnosed infertility will conceive.

Hertility gets closer to a useful clinical assessment because it combines laboratory results with medical history and professional review. Even then, the result should guide further evaluation rather than act as a final fertility verdict.

Pregnancy claims need the same caution. Mira says 84% of women got pregnant within six cycles, but its own page calls this a self-reported, retrospective analysis with no control group. Proov says it can raise the chance of pregnancy by up to 75% without showing how. The best products help people understand a cycle, notice possible problems and decide when to seek care. Any company promising a definitive fertility score goes further than the evidence allows.

Can we trust the numbers published by at-home fertility testing startups?

There is enough evidence to rank the startups, but the public data is still too uneven to calculate credible market shares.

The companies describe scale in incompatible ways, and some contradict themselves. Inito reports couples and tests taken. Mira shows 250,000, 300,000 and 350,000 women depending on the page. Hertility reports women helped, Oova reports customers, practices and data points, and Proov shows both 5,000 conceptions and 50,000 couples. Treating these as interchangeable would create fake precision.

Clinical performance claims also need translation. “99% accurate” or “up to 99.5% accuracy” might describe agreement with a laboratory assay, correct reading of prepared strips, specificity at one threshold or correlation between two methods. It rarely means the product gives the right fertility conclusion to 99 out of 100 real customers.

We give the most weight to published studies and regulatory documents that disclose methods, sample sizes and endpoints. Inito’s Scientific Reports paper and Proov’s FDA file are the clearest examples. Mira has peer-reviewed research and a Health Canada licence, while several newer claims from Mira, Oova and Proov still rest on company-run testing or summaries on their own websites.

Commercial figures deserve the same discipline. A paying test-kit customer counts more than a free assessment, a recorded cycle or an app user. A signed payer relationship carries more weight than a marketing partnership. A product on a waitlist, like Mira’s cortisol kit, counts less than one in strong repeat sales.

Our confidence is highest in the shape of the market: Inito and Mira form the leading pair, now very close, while Hertility, Oova and Proov lead narrower areas. We are less confident about the revenue gap between the top two because neither publishes audited financial results.

Which at-home fertility testing startups are actually ahead?

Inito is still narrowly ahead overall, Mira is now nearly level and moving faster, and Hertility leads the separate race toward clinical reproductive care.

Inito keeps first place because its core evidence still points one way. It has the largest disclosed funding, an affordable four-hormone product, strong published validation and a stable customer claim of more than 200,000 couples. Its weakness is silence: since December 2025 it has not shown the new tests or markets that its $29 million round was meant to fund.

Mira is now very close. It has the most mature platform, the widest regulated reach, a four-hormone product, a care partnership and a cortisol extension on the way. If Inito is 100 overall, we place Mira at about 95. Its obstacles are the recurring price and user figures that do not agree with each other.

Hertility ranks third because its product reaches further into actual healthcare. Its laboratory testing, doctor-written reports, insurer and employer channels and follow-up care give it the strongest position outside daily urine monitoring.

Oova ranks fourth and remains the most interesting specialist. Its clinician adoption, perimenopause kit and dense data are hard to dismiss. Its 20,000-plus customers are still a fraction of the leaders, and its monthly cost limits mass adoption.

Proov ranks fifth. The FDA-cleared PdG test remains an important asset, and its full-cycle kit gives broad hormone coverage without a reader. It has not shown the financing, distribution or adoption gains of Inito and Mira.

Mira takes first place if it turns its 2026 launches into clearly larger paying-customer or revenue numbers, or publishes its ultrasound study. Inito holds on if it launches the new tests its round promised. Oova could rise through large clinic or payer contracts, and Hertility needs wider geographic reach and stronger outcome data.

Rank	Startup	Why the startup holds this position
1	Inito	Strongest mix of funding, value, four-hormone testing, published evidence and a stable customer claim, but quiet since its December 2025 round
2	Mira	Nearly level and moving fastest in 2026: Health Canada licence, cortisol kit, Allara care link, held back by high recurring costs and inconsistent user totals
3	Hertility	Clear leader in laboratory-based home fertility assessment and clinically supported follow-up care
4	Oova	Best clinician-facing longitudinal monitoring platform, but still much smaller and more expensive than the consumer leaders
5	Proov	Strong regulatory credibility and broad low-cost testing, with weaker recent evidence of commercial acceleration