Is Function Health really worth $2.5B?

How much is Function Health worth today?

Function Health’s latest valuation is $2.5 billion, and that is the number we should use today.

The valuation dates back to November 19, 2025, when Function Health announced a $298 million oversubscribed Series B round led by Redpoint Ventures.

That round was a category-defining moment: Function Health also launched its Medical Intelligence Lab, its AI layer meant to connect lab tests, imaging, wearables, medical records, IoT data, clinical research, and clinician guidance.

Did Function Health’s valuation really jump that fast?

Function Health’s valuation actually exploded from about $191 million to $2.5 billion in roughly 17 months.

The previous valuation we found was $191 million, tied to Function Health’s Series A in June 2024. So the company added about $2.31 billion of paper value between those two rounds.

That is a roughly 1,209% increase. Put differently, Function Health became about 13.1 times more valuable in less than a year and a half.

It’s really impressive. Function Health added about $135 million of valuation per month, or about $1.65 billion per year, between the Series A and Series B.

Yes, that is very fast. But the real point is not just speed, it is what changed in investors’ heads.

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

What changed so much that Function Health got valued at $2.5 billion?

Function Health’s valuation jumped because, basically, investors were no longer buying a lab-testing membership company but an actual health data platform.

At Series A in June 2024, Function was still a strong but narrow consumer health product: $499 per year, 100+ lab tests, nearly 50,000 paying members, 200,000+ people on the waitlist, and more than 5 million lab tests facilitated since its April 2023 beta.

By Series B in November 2025, the company looked completely different. Function had reached hundreds of thousands of members and more than 50 million completed lab tests. That is roughly 10x the lab-test volume cited around Series A. The product also expanded from 100+ to 160+ tests, while the price fell from $499 to $365 per year. More data, broader product, lower entry price.

The bigger shift was imaging and AI. In May 2025, Function acquired Ezra, adding AI-powered full-body MRI. That moved Function beyond bloodwork into multi-modal health data.

Then, at the Series B, Function launched Medical Intelligence Lab. This was the real repricing event. The company was no longer pitching “better access to lab tests” but rather one system that connects labs, imaging, wearables, medical records, IoT data, clinical research, and clinician guidance through AI.

How many members does Function Health really have?

Today, Function Health probably has 300,000 to 450,000 members.

The company has not disclosed an exact member count. It only said it had “hundreds of thousands” of members by its November 2025 Series B.

So, it’s probably between 200,000 and 800,000 members, but we might be able to get a smaller range.

The first hard signal is Sacra’s estimate: Function had 200,000+ members by May 2025, up from about 40,000 in May 2024. So by November 2025, the floor was almost certainly above 200,000.

The second signal is lab-test volume. Function had facilitated 5M+ lab tests around Series A, when it had nearly 50,000 members. That works out to roughly 100 tests per member, which matches the product at the time: a 100+ lab-test membership.

By Series B, Function said members had completed 50M+ lab tests. The product had expanded to 160+ tests. If we divide 50M tests by 160 tests per full member cycle, we get about 312,500 full member-equivalent test cycles.

That does not mean the exact member count is 312,500. Some members may have tested more than once, while newer members may not have completed their full panel yet.

But it strongly argues against the high-end 800,000 case: 800,000 fully tested members would imply roughly 128M tests, more than double the number Function disclosed.

So the tighter range is 300,000 to 450,000 members. Below 300,000 feels too conservative given Sacra’s 200,000+ estimate in May 2025 and the November “hundreds of thousands” language. Above 450,000 starts to stretch the lab-test math unless a large share of members had not completed testing yet.

Our best estimate is therefore around 350,000 members.

What is Function Health’s current revenue?

Function Health probably has around $110 million to $164 million in annual membership revenue.

The company has not publicly disclosed exact revenue. So we have to derive it from the member range above and the current annual price of $365. It’s conservative because some members buy add-ons, but we won’t invent a number.

At 300,000 members, Function would generate about $110 million in annual membership revenue. At 450,000 members, it would generate about $164 million. Our midpoint estimate, using 350,000 members, is about $128 million.

This is not total company revenue. It excludes imaging, add-ons, upsells, enterprise revenue, and churn. But it is the cleanest estimate for the core membership business.

How much revenue does Function Health make per member?

Function Health’s core ARPU is at least $365 per member per year.

That is the conservative number because $365 is the current annual membership price. So before any extra product, each paying member should contribute about $365 of annual revenue.

As seen above, we estimate Function has 300,000 to 450,000 members. That gives us roughly $110 million to $164 million in annual membership revenue from the core subscription alone.

Real ARPU is probably higher. Some members likely buy imaging through Ezra, extra testing, or other paid services. But Function has not disclosed attach rates or add-on revenue, so we should not invent a blended ARPU.

So our clean assumption is: at least $365 ARPU, with upside from imaging and add-ons that we cannot quantify responsibly yet.

Did Function Health’s revenue grow as fast as its valuation?

Function Health’s valuation grew much faster than the member base or implied revenue we can reconstruct.

As seen above, Function’s current annual membership revenue is probably around $110 million to $164 million.

At Series A in June 2024, Function had nearly 50,000 paying members and charged $499 per year. That implies a rough core membership run-rate of about $25 million, before add-ons, assuming those members were active annual subscribers.

So the cleanest comparison is this: membership went from about 50,000 to roughly 300,000 to 450,000, or about 6x to 9x. Estimated revenue run-rate went from roughly $25 million to somewhere between $110 million and $164 million, implying about 4.4x to 6.6x growth.

The valuation, meanwhile, went from $191 million to $2.5 billion, or 13x.

So no, revenue did not grow as fast as valuation. The valuation multiple expanded dramatically.

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

What revenue multiple does Function Health’s $2.5 billion valuation imply?

Function Health’s latest private valuation implies roughly 15x to 23x annual membership revenue, based on the revenue range we can reconstruct.

As seen above, our current revenue estimate is $110 million to $164 million.

If we take the high member-count scenario, 450,000 members paying $365 per year would imply about $164 million in annual membership revenue. Against a $2.5 billion valuation, that means Function is valued at about 15.2x revenue.

If we take the low member-count scenario, 300,000 members paying $365 per year would imply about $110 million in annual membership revenue. Against the same $2.5 billion valuation, that means Function is valued at about 22.8x revenue.

Who should we compare Function Health to?

To judge Function Health’s valuation, we should compare it to three buckets: consumer health subscriptions, diagnostics infrastructure, and AI health-data platforms.

Quest Diagnostics and Labcorp are the floor, not the real comp. They show what mature testing businesses are worth: roughly 1.5x to 2x revenue. Function’s implied 15x to 23x revenue multiple is far above that, so investors are clearly not valuing it as a lab-testing company.

Hims & Hers is the better consumer comp. It has a direct-to-consumer healthcare brand, recurring users, and subscription-like revenue. But it still does not fully fit: Hims is mostly telehealth and medication commerce, while Function is built around biomarkers, imaging, and preventive health data.

Tempus AI is the most useful strategic comp. It is not consumer-facing like Function, but it captures the same valuation logic: diagnostics plus proprietary health data plus AI. That is the part investors are paying for.

So the benchmark set is simple: Hims for consumer distribution and Tempus for AI-health-data upside.

Is Function Health’s $2.5 billion valuation reasonable?

Function Health’s $2.5 billion valuation is not reasonable if we value it as a lab-testing business. It only makes sense if we value it as a consumer health-data platform.

Using our revenue estimate of $110 million to $164 million, Function’s valuation implies about 15x to 23x annual membership revenue. That is the core number.

Now let’s compare it to the right benchmarks.

As seen before, Quest Diagnostics and Labcorp are the diagnostics floor. Quest is valued at about 2.0x revenue. Labcorp is valued at about 1.6x revenue. So Function’s implied multiple is roughly 8x to 14x higher than traditional lab companies. That tells us investors are not paying for lab testing alone.

Hims & Hers is the consumer-health benchmark. It has direct-to-consumer distribution, recurring users, and a large health subscription engine. Hims is valued at about 2.5x revenue. Function’s implied multiple is therefore roughly 6x to 9x higher than Hims. That is a big premium because Hims is public, scaled, profitable, and has more than 2.5 million subscribers.

Tempus AI is the closest strategic benchmark. It combines diagnostics, proprietary health data, and AI. Tempus is valued at about 6x to 6.5x revenue. Function is still roughly 2.3x to 3.8x more expensive than Tempus, depending on where Function’s real revenue sits.

So it looks like $2.5 billion for Function is expensive, but not absurd under the platform thesis. If Function is just a premium lab-testing membership, the valuation is badly stretched. If Function becomes the consumer layer for longitudinal health data, with lab tests, imaging, wearables, records, and AI interpretation, the valuation is aggressive but explainable.

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

Is Function Health priced like a software company?

Function Health’s $2.5 billion valuation is partly priced like software, but not like the most extreme software names.

Function’s implied multiple is roughly 15x to 23x annual membership revenue. At 450,000 members, it is about 15x revenue. At 300,000 members, it is about 23x revenue. So the answer depends heavily on where the true member count sits.

Compared with healthcare services, it is clearly priced like software. Quest and Labcorp sit around 1.6x to 2.0x revenue. Hims is around 2.5x revenue. Tempus AI is around 6.5x revenue. Function is well above all of them.

The better software comps are not average SaaS companies. They are premium AI/cloud infrastructure names. Datadog is around 25x revenue, Snowflake around 18x, CrowdStrike around 36x, and Cloudflare around 41x. These companies get high multiples because investors believe their software platforms can scale with high gross margins, recurring usage, and expanding data or workflow lock-in.

That is the right lens for Function. At 15x revenue, Function is priced like a strong platform-style healthcare company, close to Snowflake’s software multiple. At 23x revenue, it starts to look like premium software, close to Datadog. But it is still below the most expensive names like CrowdStrike and Cloudflare.

How much is Function Health valued per member?

Function Health is probably valued at roughly $5,600 to $8,300 per member.

That is based on the $2.5 billion valuation and our estimated 300,000 to 450,000 members. At 450,000 members, the valuation is about $5,600 per member. At 300,000 members, it is about $8,300 per member.

The two cleanest comparisons are Hims & Hers and One Medical. Hims is the best public consumer-health subscription comp: it has more than 2.5 million subscribers and a market cap of about $6.0 billion, which implies roughly $2,400 per subscriber. Function is therefore valued at about 2.3x to 3.5x more per member than Hims.

One Medical is the better healthcare membership comp. Amazon bought it for $3.9 billion when it had about 815,000 members, implying roughly $4,800 per member. Function is therefore valued at about 1.2x to 1.7x more per member than One Medical.

So it looks like Function is not just expensive on revenue but also per member. Investors are valuing each Function member above a Hims subscriber and even above a One Medical primary-care member.

How much more revenue would Function Health need to justify $2.5 billion?

Function Health would need $86 million to $275 million more annual revenue to make the $2.5 billion valuation feel properly supported.

As seen above, we estimate Function’s current membership revenue at $110 million to $164 million, based on 300,000 to 450,000 members paying $365 per year.

If we use a generous 10x revenue multiple, Function would need about $250 million in annual revenue. That means it needs $86 million to $140 million more revenue, or about 52% to 127% more than today.

If we use the stricter 6.5x revenue multiple, closer to Tempus AI, Function would need about $385 million in annual revenue. That means it needs $221 million to $275 million more revenue, or about 135% to 250% more than today.

How many more members would Function Health need to justify $2.5 billion?

Function Health would need 235,000 to 750,000 more members to make the $2.5 billion valuation feel properly supported on membership revenue alone.

As seen above, we estimate Function has 300,000 to 450,000 members today.

If we use a generous 10x revenue multiple, Function would need roughly 685,000 members. Compared with our current estimate, that means 235,000 to 385,000 more members, or about 52% to 128% more.

If we use the stricter 6.5x revenue multiple, closer to Tempus AI, Function would need roughly 1.05 million members. Compared with our current estimate, that means 600,000 to 750,000 more members, or about 133% to 250% more.

So the clean answer is: Function needs roughly 700,000 to 1 million members, or 235,000 to 750,000 more than our estimate today, to justify the $2.5 billion valuation on membership revenue alone.

How much gross profit does Function Health make per member?

Function Health probably makes around $75 to $145 of gross profit per member per year, with a base case around $110.

The company does not disclose gross margin, so we cannot answer this directly. We have to estimate it from the current $365 annual membership price and the likely cost structure: lab processing, blood draw logistics, clinician review, software, and support.

The best anchor is Quest Diagnostics. Quest generated $11.0 billion of revenue in 2025 and had $7.4 billion of cost of services, implying about 33% gross margin before SG&A. That is useful because Function relies on lab infrastructure rather than owning a pure software margin profile.

So if Function’s core membership has a 20% to 40% gross margin, that means $73 to $146 of gross profit per member on a $365 annual membership. A 30% base case gives about $110 gross profit per member.

We should not go higher without evidence. Function may have negotiated attractive lab pricing, but it is still delivering real-world testing and clinical review. This is not a 75% to 85% software gross-margin product.

So the clean assumption is: $365 ARPU, roughly $75 to $145 gross profit per member, and around $110 in the base case. The upside comes from imaging and add-ons, but Function has not disclosed attach rates, so we should not bake that into the core gross-profit estimate.

Do Function Health members actually renew?

Function Health is probably retention-friendly, but we do not have enough disclosed data to call it a proven high-retention subscription yet.

The company has not disclosed renewal rate, churn, cohort retention, repeat-testing rate, or net revenue retention. So we should not pretend we have a hard retention number.

The strongest estimate we can make is that Function likely sits around 60% to 75% first-year retention, with upside toward 80%+ if members start using it as an annual health record rather than a one-time test.

The product has real retention advantages. Members pay annually, get two rounds of blood testing, and can track biomarkers over time. That creates a natural reason to renew: the value is not just knowing your numbers once, but seeing whether they improve, worsen, or stay stable. The price cut from $499 to $365 also helps retention because the renewal decision becomes easier.

But it is not perfectly sticky. Function is not a daily-use product like a software workflow, and many users may join once to get a full baseline, then skip the next year. That is the main churn risk: the first test feels urgent, the second year feels optional.

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

How much does Function Health spend to acquire a member?

Function Health probably has a CAC around $75 to $175 per new member, with a base case around $125.

The company does not disclose CAC, marketing spend, or paid acquisition efficiency. So we cannot pretend this is a reported number. But the estimate has to be lower than a normal cold-start consumer-health CAC because Function had strong organic demand: there was a 200,000+ waitlist already at Series A.

The reason we do not go too low is that this is still healthcare. Function has to educate users, build trust, convert them into a $365 annual purchase, and likely spend across paid social, creators, podcasts, partnerships, and brand. So $75 to $175 CAC feels like the defensible range. Below $75 would be unusually efficient. Above $175 starts to hurt, given the economics.

As seen above, our core gross profit estimate is roughly $75 to $145 per member per year, with a base case around $110. So the gross-profit CAC payback is probably 6 to 28 months, with a base case around 14 months.

The clean read is this: Function’s CAC is probably not the problem if it stays near $125 and retention lands around 60% to 75%. But if CAC drifts above $200, the model becomes much harder to defend because one member may take almost two years to pay back on gross profit alone.

What does Function Health actually own?

Function Health does not own the lab infrastructure. It owns the consumer relationship, the health-data layer, and the Ezra imaging product layer.

That matters because the $2.5 billion valuation is not backed by owned labs or payer contracts. Members use 2,000+ Quest Diagnostics locations, so the lab network is partner infrastructure, not Function’s asset.

Function also does not look like an insurance-driven business. It sells a direct-pay $365/year membership. Members may use FSA or HSA funds, but this is not a payer-contract model.

What Function owns is the front door: members, brand, software, results interpretation, and longitudinal health data. That is the real asset: 50M+ completed lab tests, an estimated 300,000 to 450,000 members, and a product built around repeat biomarker tracking.

Ezra adds one owned layer: AI-powered full-body MRI. Function acquired Ezra in May 2025. But even there, the asset is mostly imaging software and product packaging, not a national MRI real-estate network.

How does Function Health’s valuation compare with companies that own the rails?

Function Health is valued far richer than the companies that actually own the lab and imaging infrastructure.

That is the strange part. Function does not own the Quest lab network its members use, but its implied revenue multiple is much higher than Quest’s. Function’s $2.5 billion valuation implies roughly 15x to 23x annual membership revenue, using our $110 million to $164 million revenue estimate.

Quest Diagnostics is the cleanest “rails” comp. It owns lab infrastructure, generated about $11.0 billion of 2025 revenue, and has a market cap around $22.4 billion. That implies about 2.0x revenue. Function is therefore valued at roughly 7x to 11x Quest’s revenue multiple.

Labcorp tells the same story. It generated about $14.0 billion of 2025 revenue and has a market cap around $21.7 billion, implying about 1.6x revenue. Function is valued at roughly 10x to 15x Labcorp’s revenue multiple.

RadNet is the imaging rails comp. It owns or operates 418 outpatient imaging centers, generated about $2.0 billion of 2025 revenue, and has a market cap around $4.2 billion. That implies about 2.0x revenue. Function is valued at roughly 7x to 11x RadNet’s revenue multiple.

The absolute comparison is even sharper. Function is worth about 11% of Quest and 12% of Labcorp, while probably doing only about 1% of their revenue. It is also worth about 60% of RadNet, while probably doing only 5% to 8% of RadNet’s revenue.

So, without any doubt, Function is not valued like a company that owns healthcare rails. It is valued like the company sitting above the rails could become more valuable than the rails themselves.

Is Function Health’s recent price cut a bad sign?

Function Health’s price cut from $499 to $365 per year is not automatically a bad signal. It looks more like a land-grab move, but it also confirms that pricing pressure is real.

At $365/year, Function offers 160+ lab tests, clinician review, and a personalized action plan. That is about $2.28 per listed test. At the old $499 price, it was about $3.12 per listed test. So the price cut made the product about 27% cheaper, while keeping the headline test count high.

Superpower is the obvious pressure point. It offers 100+ biomarkers for $199/year, lab access through 3,000+ Quest locations, AI analysis, and a care team. That is about $1.99 per listed biomarker, so yes, Superpower is cheaper on headline price and slightly cheaper per biomarker.

But Function still has the stronger premium positioning. It offers 160+ tests versus Superpower’s 100+, and it now adds the broader platform story: Medical Intelligence Lab, Private AI Chat, Protocols, imaging through Ezra, and longitudinal tracking. So Superpower wins on entry price; Function wins on breadth and platform narrative.

Function’s price cut is not a demand panic signal. It is a market-expansion signal. At $499, Function looked like a premium quantified-health product. At $365, it becomes a “$1 per day” preventive-health membership.

That matters because the valuation only works if Function scales from hundreds of thousands of members toward mass-market adoption.

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

What is the bull case for Function Health?

The bull case is that Function turns 300,000 to 450,000 members, 50M+ lab tests, 160+ biomarkers, and Ezra imaging into the default consumer health-data platform.

The numbers can work if three things happen. First, members grow toward 700,000 to 1M, which would imply roughly $250M to $365M in annual membership revenue at $365/year.

Second, ARPU rises above $365 through imaging, add-ons, and AI-guided care. Third, retention lands closer to 80%+, meaning members use Function as an annual health record, not a one-time lab panel.

In that scenario, the $2.5B valuation starts to make sense. At $250M revenue, Function is valued at 10x revenue. At $365M revenue, it is closer to 6.8x revenue, roughly in the zone of high-growth health-data platforms.

The valuation stops looking like hype if Function proves that bloodwork, imaging, wearables, and AI interpretation create a repeat-use data network.

What is the bear case for Function Health?

The bear case is that Function is still mostly a premium lab-testing wrapper valued like software.

That risk is real. Function’s current implied revenue is probably only $110M to $164M, based on 300,000 to 450,000 members paying $365/year. Against a $2.5B valuation, that means roughly 15x to 23x revenue. That is far above Quest and Labcorp at around 1.6x to 2.0x revenue, Hims at around 2.5x, and Tempus around 6x to 6.5x.

The bear case gets worse if retention is mediocre. If many users buy once to get a baseline and do not renew, Function does not have a data moat. It just has expensive acquisition, thin gross profit per member, and dependency on third-party rails. We estimate core gross profit at only $75 to $145 per member per year, so CAC and retention matter a lot.

Competition also pressures the story. Superpower offers 100+ biomarkers for $199/year, while Function charges $365/year for 160+ tests.

Prenuvo starts at $1,199 with MRI plus 80+ biomarkers. So Function cannot rely on test access alone. The moat has to come from interpretation, repeat behavior, and multi-modal data depth.

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.