CGM platforms: which startup is ahead?
In our digital health market deck, you will find everything you need to understand the market
SUMMARY
Levels is currently ahead in the CGM platform market, although Signos is now close enough to make this a real two-company race.
Levels leads through accumulation rather than sudden momentum. It has the broadest product, the largest independently visible application footprint and several ways to retain customers after they stop wearing a sensor.
Signos is moving faster than the rest of the field. Its reported tenfold growth, FDA-cleared positioning and new access to Dexcom’s Stelo audience are unusually strong recent developments, but the company still does not disclose the absolute customer or revenue figures needed to confirm that it has overtaken Levels.
The audience comparison is less straightforward than the headline numbers suggest. Nutrisense claims more than 150,000 users, while Levels previously disclosed more than 60,000 members, yet Levels has substantially more US App Store ratings and therefore the strongest public footprint measured consistently across the four companies.
The sensor itself is becoming less of a competitive advantage. Most platforms rely on hardware from Dexcom or Abbott, so the real contest is shifting toward interpretation, coaching, prediction, distribution and whether the application remains useful after the first few weeks of glucose discovery.
Levels has designed the strongest answer to that retention problem. Laboratory testing, clinician review, nutrition support and app-only tracking allow the relationship to continue without requiring customers to receive new sensors every month.
January AI is the scientific and software outlier. It has the strongest published glucose evidence and the cheapest model to scale, but its low subscription price and sensor-light positioning have not yet produced the same visible commercial traction as Levels or Signos.
Signos’ FDA clearance is a meaningful commercial advantage, especially for weight management and conversations with insurers or distribution partners. It is not evidence that Signos produces better outcomes than its rivals, though, and competitors could eventually pursue similar regulatory paths.
Nutrisense has achieved the clearest strategic outcome per dollar raised. Dexcom’s planned acquisition validates its coaching and behavior-change capabilities, even if the transaction would also remove Nutrisense from the independent startup race.
Dexcom is reshaping the entire category from several directions at once. It supplies the underlying sensor, controls the Stelo storefront, backs Signos, plans to acquire Nutrisense and is adding more interpretation and AI coaching to its own application.
The final ranking is less certain than it may look because none of the startups publishes comparable revenue, paid-user, retention, acquisition-cost or gross-margin figures. Levels has the strongest visible position today; Signos has the clearest path to taking it.
This market map, featured in our digital health market deck, highlights top companies and startups in the digital health market
Which CGM startups belong in this comparison?
Four startups deserve a place in the core comparison today: Levels, Signos, Nutrisense and January AI.
We include software-led platforms that turn continuous glucose data into nutrition, weight-management or broader metabolic-health guidance for consumers. The sensor can come from Dexcom or Abbott; the startup’s main contribution must be the interpretation, coaching or behavior-change layer built around it.
Dexcom and Abbott sit outside the field because they manufacture the sensors and operate at a completely different scale. We also exclude broader wearable companies such as Ultrahuman, nutrition programs such as ZOE, and clinical disease-management providers such as Twin Health. CGM plays a role in those products, but it does not define the entire business in the same way.
Levels has raised approximately $67 million. Signos has raised roughly $57 million after adding a recent $20 million round to its earlier funding. January AI has raised about $28.3 million, and Nutrisense about $25 million. Private-company databases sometimes differ by a few million dollars, so these totals should be read as good approximations.
Nutrisense remains relevant because it built one of the category’s largest consumer platforms. Dexcom has agreed to acquire the company, although the announced transaction was still pending the usual closing conditions in Dexcom’s latest update.
| Startup | What it currently offers | Approximate funding | Why it belongs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Levels | Metabolic-health app combining CGM, laboratory testing, clinician review and nutrition tools | $67M | Broadest independent consumer platform |
| Signos | CGM-based weight-management app using Stelo, AI guidance and professional support | $57M | Strongest recent growth and regulatory position |
| Nutrisense | CGM interpretation combined with registered-dietitian coaching | $25M | Large reported user base and strong coaching model |
| January AI | Predictive glucose and nutrition software that can work with or without a CGM | $28.3M | Most developed sensor-light alternative |
Is there a clear leader in CGM platforms today?
Levels is still ahead overall today, but Signos has turned the market into a genuine two-company race.
Levels holds the stronger accumulated position. It has built the broadest product, disclosed more than 60,000 members by 2024 and currently has the largest public App Store footprint among the four companies. Its service also extends beyond the period when someone is actively wearing a sensor, which gives it more ways to retain customers.
Signos is moving faster. It has the clearest regulatory position in weight management, recently attracted another group of strategic investors and says its business expanded tenfold over six months. The company has not disclosed the starting point, current paid membership or revenue, so that growth claim cannot outweigh Levels’ visible scale yet.
Nutrisense and January lead narrower parts of the market. Nutrisense has built the strongest coaching-led experience and claims a larger cumulative audience than any rival. January has pushed furthest toward predicting glucose responses without requiring continuous sensor use. Neither currently combines scale, product breadth and commercial maturity as convincingly as Levels.
The gap between the top two is modest. Levels leads through what it has already built; Signos is the company most likely to catch it.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest digital health market report.
As this chart shows, and as featured in our digital health market deck, search interest in longevity apps and related topics has been increasing
Which CGM platform has reached the most people?
Nutrisense has the largest company-reported audience, while Levels has the strongest public footprint we can verify without relying entirely on a startup’s own claims.
Nutrisense currently says its application is loved by more than 150,000 users. That is the largest disclosed audience figure in the comparison, but the company does not explain how many are active, paying, using sensors or only using the application. We should therefore treat 150,000 as cumulative reach rather than a subscriber count.
Levels gave a more specific company figure in 2024, saying it had helped more than 60,000 members. Its US App Store page now shows approximately 6,600 ratings, compared with 4,300 for Nutrisense, 1,200 for January and 1,000 for Signos. Ratings are imperfect, but they are independently visible and measured the same way for all four applications.
On that public proxy, Levels has about 6.6 times as many ratings as Signos, 5.5 times as many as January and 50% more than Nutrisense. The gap suggests a substantially larger accumulated iPhone audience, even though it cannot tell us how many people still pay or use the product every month.
| Platform | US App Store ratings | Average rating | Other disclosed reach |
|---|---|---|---|
| Levels | 6,600 | 4.7 | More than 60,000 members disclosed in 2024 |
| Nutrisense | 4,300 | 4.3 | More than 150,000 users claimed currently |
| January AI | 1,200 | 4.5 | No comparable total user count disclosed |
| Signos | 1,000 | 4.6 | No comparable total user count disclosed |
Who has the strongest commercial traction?
Levels has the strongest accumulated direct-to-consumer traction, although none of these startups publishes enough current financial data to prove a revenue lead.
Levels had already served more than 60,000 members by 2024 and has since expanded from a CGM membership into a modular metabolic-health service. Customers can now pay for the software alone, add sensor periods, purchase laboratory testing or move into plans with clinician and nutrition support. That creates several revenue streams rather than relying on one recurring sensor bundle.
Nutrisense’s claim of more than 150,000 users may indicate greater cumulative reach. The problem is that “users” can include people with very different levels of engagement and spending. Its dietitian network, several thousand App Store ratings and strategic value to Dexcom still show that the company developed a real commercial operation rather than a small wellness experiment.
Signos has the freshest demand story but withholds the absolute numbers that would settle the comparison. We do not know whether its recent expansion took it from thousands to tens of thousands of customers, nor how many renew after their first plan. January discloses even less about paid adoption, and its much lower subscription price means user growth would not translate into revenue at the same rate.
Levels gets the commercial lead because we can see both meaningful historical adoption and a mature product ladder. The conclusion could change quickly if Signos publishes a large paid customer base, strong renewal rates or substantial recurring revenue.
This chart, featured in our digital health market deck, shows annual VC investment in digital health startups
Which CGM startup is growing fastest now?
Signos is growing fastest now, and none of its competitors has published a recent expansion rate that comes close.
In its latest financing announcement, Signos said it had grown tenfold during the preceding six months. The company raised another $20 million from investors including GV, Dexcom and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama. Bringing a sensor manufacturer and a health insurer into the same round also gives Signos more useful connections than a financing led only by generalist venture funds.
We should still resist turning “10x” into a market-share claim. Signos did not disclose its starting revenue, ending revenue, customer count or retention. Tenfold growth from a small base can leave a company well behind a larger competitor that grew slowly.
The surrounding developments make the acceleration credible. Signos has moved toward easier over-the-counter access, sharpened its weight-management positioning and gained a more direct route to consumers already interested in glucose monitoring. Those changes can reinforce one another rather than producing a single short-lived jump.
Levels has lately focused on broadening its membership and laboratory products. January has been adding predictive, health-record and AI-coaching functions. Nutrisense is moving toward integration with Dexcom. All three are progressing, but Signos is currently setting the pace.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest digital health market report.
Who has built the strongest paid CGM product?
Levels has the strongest all-round paid product, and Signos has the clearest one for people specifically trying to lose weight.
Levels now begins with an app membership and lets customers add CGM periods, laboratory tests, clinician review and nutrition support. Its higher plans cover dozens or even more than 100 laboratory markers alongside glucose data. A customer can use Levels before wearing a sensor, during the sensor period and months afterward.
That longer relationship gives Levels an important advantage. Many people learn most of their obvious food patterns within a few weeks. A platform built only around a fresh sensor shipment may struggle to justify another year of payments. Levels can continue tracking laboratory changes, exercise, sleep, food and metabolic trends after the CGM experiment ends.
Signos has a narrower product with a more immediate promise. It connects Stelo readings with food, exercise, sleep and weight, then recommends actions aimed at weight management. The application also includes AI nudges and access to professional support. Someone joining Signos can understand the intended outcome within seconds.
Nutrisense remains the strongest option for people who want a human to interpret the data. Registered dietitians can help users work through patterns that an automated score may oversimplify. That service is valuable but more expensive and operationally harder to expand.
January offers a different bargain. Its application predicts food responses for people who do not want to buy or continuously wear a sensor. It is the easiest product to try, though it provides less measured information unless a user connects an actual CGM.
Levels wins on completeness and long-term usefulness. Signos wins on focus. Nutrisense wins on human support, and January wins on accessibility.
This chart, featured in our digital health market deck, shows how Hinge Health captured share in digital health
Which CGM platform actually delivers better results?
No platform can currently prove that it produces better outcomes than all the others.
Most of these startups use sensors made by Dexcom or Abbott. The accuracy of the raw glucose reading therefore comes mainly from the hardware manufacturer. The startup competes through its interface, interpretation, recommendations and ability to keep someone engaged.
There is no independent head-to-head trial placing Levels, Signos, Nutrisense and January under the same conditions. The companies study different populations, measure different outcomes and observe users for different lengths of time. One paper may examine time in glucose range, another weight loss, and another meal timing. Those results cannot be turned into a fair league table.
Consumer ratings add useful context but settle little. Levels, Signos and January all sit around 4.5 to 4.7 stars despite very different audience sizes. High ratings show that each product works well for some users; they do not reveal which one produces more durable weight loss or better metabolic health.
Broader reviews of CGM use among people without diabetes also remain cautious. Researchers can see that the devices change awareness and behavior, but the clinical meaning of every glucose spike is still debated. We can rank product maturity and evidence quality, while a definitive outcomes winner remains beyond what the research supports.
Who has the strongest clinical evidence?
January AI has the strongest published glucose evidence, while Signos has the most relevant study for CGM-assisted weight loss.
A 2025 paper in npj Digital Medicine examined 944 January users. Among participants without diabetes, average time in the target glucose range increased from 74.7% to 85.5%. Participants with type 2 diabetes improved from 49.7% to 57.4%, and average weight fell by about 3.3 pounds over 33 days.
January had already published a separate study involving 2,217 participants who used CGM and the application before continuing with the software. Taken together, the two published cohorts cover 3,161 people. That is the deepest visible body of product research among these four startups.
Signos has published a retrospective analysis of 926 adults with obesity and without diabetes. Users whose final glucose spike generally occurred before 5:41 p.m. lost 8.42% of their body weight, compared with 2.57% among those whose final spike occurred after 8:42 p.m. The difference was more than threefold and supports Signos’ focus on meal timing and weight management.
The Signos result shows a strong association, though the study cannot prove that moving the final spike earlier caused the extra weight loss. It was retrospective, and several authors had links to the company. January’s studies face similar self-selection and engagement problems: people who use a health application most intensely often start out more motivated.
Levels has presented research around food logging and CGM-guided behavior, but its publicly available product evidence is thinner. Nutrisense emphasizes coaching and personalized nutrition without matching January’s published sample sizes.
January deserves the overall evidence lead. Signos has a narrower but commercially useful result that fits its product unusually well.
This chart, featured in our digital health market deck, shows annual funding in digital health startups
Does Signos have a real FDA advantage?
Signos owns the clearest regulatory advantage in consumer CGM platforms today.
The FDA cleared the Signos Glucose Monitoring System through the 510(k) process as an over-the-counter system for adults who do not use insulin. The official indications say it can help users understand how lifestyle and behavioral changes affect glucose and may help them maintain a healthy weight.
That wording gives Signos room to connect its product directly with weight management. A normal wellness application has to be more careful about implying that its recommendations support a regulated health outcome. The clearance also helps when Signos speaks with insurers, employers, clinicians and distribution partners.
The FDA record covers safety, interoperability and intended use. It offers no evidence that Signos causes more weight loss than Levels or Nutrisense. The agency found the product substantially equivalent to an existing category of device rather than approving it as a new weight-loss treatment.
Competitors could pursue similar clearances, and the underlying Stelo sensor belongs to Dexcom. Signos has a valuable head start, not a permanent monopoly.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest digital health market report.
Which CGM platform offers the best value today?
January is the cheapest by far, Levels offers the most flexible path, and the higher prices of Signos and Nutrisense mainly pay for continuous sensors and support.
January’s main annual subscription is listed at $59.99, allowing someone to explore predicted glucose responses without buying a sensor. The prediction will never be as personal as a live measurement on day one, but the price opens the product to a much larger audience.
Levels currently lists its basic app membership at $80 per year, with CGM and laboratory services available separately. Its Core plan costs $499 annually and includes laboratory testing, clinician review and one month of CGM use. The $1,999 Complete plan adds broader testing, more sensor time and nutrition support.
Signos currently displays a promotional price of $127 per month for its six-month plan, compared with a regular price of $169. The plan includes two Stelo sensors each month. Nutrisense says its sensor programs start at $179 per month, while app-only memberships begin around $39. Dietitian or stress-management calls may be covered by insurance for eligible customers.
| Platform | Current entry price | Sensor access | Best value for |
|---|---|---|---|
| January AI | $59.99/year | Optional connection; no continuous sensor supply | Low-cost food-response guidance |
| Levels | $80/year for the app | Added separately; higher plans include limited CGM periods | Flexible metabolic tracking before and after CGM use |
| Signos | $127/month under its displayed six-month promotion | Two Stelo sensors per month | Continuous glucose-guided weight management |
| Nutrisense | $39/month app-only; CGM plans from $179/month | Included with CGM plans | People who value dietitian support |
This chart, featured in our digital health market deck, compares the main business model options for digital health SaaS platforms
Who has the strongest distribution?
Signos has the best new customer-acquisition channel, while Levels still owns the stronger audience.
Signos can now reach customers through Stelo.com, placing its service in front of people already considering an over-the-counter Dexcom sensor. That is a much shorter path than convincing a general wellness audience to learn about CGMs, choose a sensor and then select an interpretation platform.
Dexcom also invested in Signos, although an investment and storefront placement should not be confused with exclusivity. Dexcom can support several software approaches at once, including its own application.
Levels has spent years building direct demand. In 2024, the company reported more than 18 million views across its YouTube content and about two million annual blog visitors. Its larger App Store footprint adds another owned channel. That audience gives Levels more independence from any single sensor manufacturer.
January has the easiest product to distribute through app stores because it does not require a sensor purchase. Its newer health-record and enterprise functions could eventually create additional channels, but the company has not disclosed enough major contracts to put it ahead.
Signos currently has the most powerful new route into CGM buyers. Levels remains stronger at attracting and educating consumers under its own brand.
Who has the strongest data advantage?
Levels has the richest observable data asset, while January uses data most aggressively to predict what will happen before someone eats.
Levels said in 2024 that its members had generated more than 700 million glucose data points and hundreds of thousands of food logs. Its current product can add laboratory results, exercise, sleep, clinician interpretation and repeated measurements over time. That combination is harder to reproduce than a collection of glucose curves alone.
January says its application can estimate the glucose impact of more than 54 million foods. That figure describes the size of its food database rather than the number of measured human responses, an important difference. The company’s real advantage comes from linking food information, individual health data and past CGM behavior to make predictions without a new sensor.
Signos may own the most focused dataset connecting glucose patterns with weight-management behavior. Its published study shows the kind of relationship it can extract from meal timing, glucose spikes and weight change. The company has not revealed the total size of that dataset.
Nutrisense could hold valuable annotated data from dietitian conversations. Human professionals record why a pattern may have occurred and which intervention they recommend, producing richer labels than an automated meal score. The volume and structure of those annotations remain private.
Levels gets the lead because it has disclosed meaningful scale and now collects several kinds of metabolic information. January is the more ambitious predictive challenger.
This chart, featured in our digital health market deck, shows how revenue is split across customer segments in the digital health market
Which startup can scale without its costs exploding?
January can add users most cheaply, but Levels has the stronger model for keeping them after the sensor phase.
January can serve another software subscriber without shipping hardware or assigning a dietitian. Its marginal delivery cost should remain low once the predictive system and application are running. That makes global expansion easier and supports a much lower price.
The revenue per customer is also much lower. Annualizing Signos’ currently displayed six-month rate produces about $1,524 per customer, more than 25 times January’s $59.99 annual subscription. Signos must use part of that difference to pay for 24 sensors a year, professional support, fulfillment and customer service.
Nutrisense carries the heaviest human-service burden. Dietitian access can improve the experience and justify a premium, but qualified professionals have limited hours. Software can serve ten times more people without hiring ten times more coaches; a dietitian network usually cannot.
Levels has designed a useful middle ground. Customers can move between software, short CGM periods, laboratory testing and higher-touch services. The company does not have to supply a fresh sensor every month to preserve the relationship.
January wins on pure software scalability. Levels has the better balance of scalability, pricing power and long-term retention options.
Who has used its funding most effectively?
Nutrisense has produced the clearest strategic outcome per dollar raised, while Levels has built the most durable independent platform.
Nutrisense reached an acquisition agreement with Dexcom after raising roughly $25 million, far less than Levels or Signos. The purchase price remains private, so we cannot calculate the return for investors. Still, a leading sensor manufacturer decided that Nutrisense’s coaching, nutrition and behavior-change capabilities were worth buying.
Levels has raised about $67 million and used it to build the category’s broadest independent platform, a sizeable audience, a large data asset and a product extending beyond CGM. That is more substantial than raising heavily to support a single feature or a collection of pilots.
Signos has raised approximately $57 million. Its output includes an FDA-cleared system, a commercial application, strategic distribution and rapid recent growth. We will know whether that capital was used efficiently once the company reveals durable customer or revenue scale.
January has done a considerable amount with roughly $28.3 million: two sizeable published studies, a consumer application, predictive technology and an expanding enterprise proposition. Its technical progress looks efficient, but the commercial return remains hard to judge at a low consumer price.
Without revenue, gross margins and cash-burn figures, any precise efficiency score would be invented. Nutrisense leads on strategic validation, and Levels leads on the strength of the independent company created.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest digital health market report.
This chart, featured in our digital health market deck, shows how remote patient monitoring platform technology has evolved over time
How much is Dexcom reshaping the CGM platform market?
Dexcom now sits on every side of this market: it supplies the sensor, controls a major storefront, backs a startup, plans to buy another and keeps improving its own software.
The redesigned Stelo application adds pattern recognition, proactive AI coaching and daily or weekly summaries. Those functions overlap directly with what independent CGM platforms have historically charged consumers to receive.
Dexcom also invested in Signos and carries the service through Stelo.com. At the same time, it has agreed to acquire Nutrisense for its dietitians, nutrition guidance and behavior-change expertise. These moves show that Dexcom sees meaningful value in the layer built above the glucose reading.
The competitive pressure now comes from the supplier itself. Levels and January need to offer something that Dexcom cannot easily fold into Stelo, such as richer laboratory integration, stronger cross-sensor independence, superior prediction or a broader health record.
Signos benefits from Dexcom’s reach while becoming more dependent on its decisions. Nutrisense gains the resources of a much larger company but leaves the independent startup race if the transaction closes.
Dexcom’s behavior also tells us where the category is heading. Basic glucose charts are becoming a commodity. The harder business lies in explaining the data, changing behavior and keeping customers engaged after the novelty of the sensor disappears.
How trustworthy is the evidence behind this ranking?
The evidence is strong enough to rank the field, but far too incomplete for a precise market-share table.
FDA records, official product pages, current pricing, App Store data and peer-reviewed studies give us a solid foundation. They show which products are available, how large their visible audiences are, what regulators have cleared and which health outcomes have been studied.
Company user counts require more care. “Members,” “users,” “customers” and “people helped” can describe different populations. A person who downloaded an application once may sit beside an active customer paying hundreds of dollars a month.
Private funding databases are generally useful for order-of-magnitude comparisons. Small differences can arise from convertible notes, secondary sales or rounds that one database counts and another omits.
Growth claims without starting and ending figures deserve the least confidence. Signos’ reported expansion fits the company’s recent financing and distribution progress, but the missing base prevents us from knowing its absolute size.
The largest remaining hole is financial. None of the four publishes comparable revenue, active paid subscriptions, retention, acquisition cost or gross margin. Those figures could change the order, particularly between Levels and Signos.
In our digital health market deck, we identify pain points entrepreneurs should prioritize
Who leads each part of the CGM platform market?
Levels leads the broad platform, Signos leads regulated weight management, Nutrisense leads human coaching, and January leads prediction without a sensor.
Levels covers the greatest portion of the metabolic-health journey. It can start with an application, add a CGM, incorporate laboratory testing and continue with clinician or nutrition support. That range makes it the strongest general platform.
Signos has built the clearest proposition around weight management. Its product, FDA language and distribution all point toward one outcome, giving the company a sharper identity than Levels.
Nutrisense remains the most developed coaching-led service. Customers who want a registered dietitian rather than another automated score will find a clearer match there.
January has pushed furthest beyond continuous measurement. Its aim is to predict food responses cheaply enough for people who would never pay for year-round sensors. That makes it the category’s most unconventional competitor and gives it the largest theoretical audience.
The overall winner depends on which of these subcategories becomes most valuable. Today, broad metabolic-health relationships carry more demonstrated commercial weight than prediction alone.
Which startups are actually ahead?
Levels is ahead overall today, with Signos close enough to overtake it if its current growth turns into a large and durable paid customer base.
Levels has the best combination of accumulated reach, product breadth, data depth and independence. It has served a substantial audience, owns the largest public app footprint and can keep delivering value after customers stop wearing a CGM. Those advantages carry more weight than a recent growth claim with no disclosed base.
Signos is the closest challenger and currently has more momentum. As seen above, its company-reported tenfold expansion, FDA position and strategic investor group all point in the same direction. Its Stelo.com channel gives it direct access to sensor buyers. The remaining question is scale: Signos still needs to show how many customers it has, how much they spend and how often they renew.
Nutrisense ranks third. It may have reached the largest cumulative audience and has the strongest human-coaching model. As discussed above, the pending Dexcom transaction validates the product but will remove Nutrisense from the independent contest if it closes.
January ranks fourth in the current market and first in strategic optionality. Its low-cost predictive model and deeper published evidence could support a much larger software audience. Moving higher will require prospective validation, major enterprise contracts or proof that predicted responses retain users as effectively as measured glucose.
Levels’ lead is real but hardly comfortable. Signos can take first place by converting its present acceleration into disclosed commercial scale. Levels can widen the gap by proving that its broader membership produces strong renewals after the initial CGM period. January can disrupt both if sensor-free prediction becomes trusted enough for mainstream use.
| Rank | Startup | Why it holds this position |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Levels | Strongest accumulated footprint, broadest product and richest visible data asset |
| 2 | Signos | Fastest current growth, clearest FDA position and strongest new distribution channel, with less disclosed absolute scale |
| 3 | Nutrisense | Largest claimed audience and best human-coaching model, but likely leaving the independent race |
| 4 | January AI | Best low-cost predictive approach and strongest published glucose evidence, with less proven commercial traction |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest digital health market report.
This chart, featured in our digital health market deck, shows how revenue is distributed by region across Europe, Asia, North America, Africa, and South America in the digital health market
OUR METHODOLOGY
The answer to “CGM platforms: which startup is ahead?” is less obvious than it first appears. The companies disclose different metrics, target different users and compete through different combinations of software, sensors, coaching, clinical evidence and distribution, so a comparison based only on funding or reputation would miss most of the story.
We broke the main question into the dimensions that reveal competitive strength most clearly: consumer reach, commercial traction, recent growth, product depth, demonstrated outcomes, clinical evidence, regulatory position, pricing, distribution, data advantages, scalability and capital efficiency.
For each dimension, we reviewed the freshest relevant evidence available and combined several indicators instead of allowing one striking number to determine the answer. Regulatory records, peer-reviewed studies, official product pages, current pricing and independently visible application data carried the most weight. Company announcements were useful for identifying momentum, but received less weight when customer, revenue or retention figures were not disclosed.
We also separated current leadership from momentum. Levels’ accumulated audience, product breadth and data assets show where the market stands today, while Signos’ recent growth, regulatory position and Dexcom distribution relationship show which company is moving fastest. Those are related questions, but they are not the same question.
App Store ratings were used as a consistent public indicator of accumulated consumer reach, not as a substitute for active membership or revenue. Company references to “users,” “members” and “people helped” were kept separate because those labels can represent very different levels of engagement. Funding totals were treated as approximate.
Key sources included the FDA’s 510(k) record for the Signos Glucose Monitoring System, the FDA’s announcement covering the first over-the-counter CGM, Dexcom’s update on Stelo and its planned Nutrisense acquisition, and the January AI study published in npj Digital Medicine.
Product and pricing comparisons were checked against the current official pages of Levels, Levels’ plan documentation, Signos, Signos’ support documentation, Nutrisense, Nutrisense’s pricing page, January AI and January’s predictive-food platform.
The final ranking reflects the pattern across all these dimensions. Broad advantages supported by several recent and independent observations carried more weight than an isolated lead in one category, which is why Levels remains first overall even as Signos currently shows the strongest momentum.
This chart, featured in our digital health market deck, shows annual VC investment in digital health startups
Related blog posts
- Who is ahead in at-home blood testing?
- Who is emerging as the leader in preventive health?
