What business models are working in the longevity market?
In our longevity market deck, you will find everything you need to understand the market
SUMMARY
The longevity business models working best today are wearable subscriptions, recurring preventive-health memberships, repeat diagnostics and premium preventive care. Supplements also work commercially, while longevity biotech still makes money mainly through financing, partnerships and the future value of drugs that have not yet reached the market.
The consumer market has arrived before longevity medicine in the strict sense. People are already paying at scale to measure more, screen earlier and interpret their health data, even though there is still no approved therapy that can credibly be sold to healthy people as a way to extend lifespan.
Wearables currently have the strongest commercial proof because they combine hardware revenue, recurring subscriptions and daily engagement. Oura and WHOOP also collect far denser longitudinal data than a service that sees a customer once or twice a year.
Preventive-health memberships may be the strongest pure longevity model. Function Health shows how broad testing can become a recurring, asset-light relationship when laboratories are outsourced and the company keeps adding imaging, protocols and interpretation around the original membership.
Imaging is proving more repeatable than many expected. Neko Health says roughly 75% of customers book and prepay for another scan, while Prenuvo is deliberately turning MRI from a one-off purchase into an annual monitoring product.
The economics get harder as the model becomes more physical. Scanning businesses need clinics and equipment, while premium longevity clinics need expensive locations, clinicians and enough affluent customers nearby; franchising can spread that burden, but it does not remove it.
The deepest moat is starting to look like the health record rather than any single device, scan or test. Oura, Function, Prenuvo and Neko are all widening their products because a multi-year history of biometrics, blood markers, imaging and interventions is harder to replace than one isolated service.
Supplements and biological-age testing are attractive because repeat purchases are easy to engineer and infrastructure needs are low. Their weakness is defensibility: products are easier to copy, and a better biological-age score is not the same thing as proven extra years of healthy life.
Longevity biotech has by far the largest theoretical upside and the weakest product-level proof. For now, the workable model is classic biotechnology: raise equity, generate collaboration revenue, license promising biology and collect milestones while trying to survive long enough for a drug to succeed.
The likely commercial path for the first important longevity drugs runs through ordinary disease markets such as cardiometabolic disease, liver disease or neurodegeneration. That gives regulators, doctors and payers familiar endpoints long before anyone tries to sell a pill simply for “slower aging.”
The clearest pattern across the market is that customers already pay to reduce uncertainty about their future health. The winners are increasingly the companies that turn that demand into a recurring account, keep adding new data to it and then sell more testing, monitoring, interpretation and care through the same relationship.
This market map, featured in our longevity market deck, highlights top companies and startups in the longevity market
What does a longevity business model have to prove before we call it “working”?
A longevity business model is working today when people keep paying for it, revenue can grow without heroic assumptions about future science, and the company has some evidence that customers come back.
That definition immediately separates two very different markets that are often mixed together under “longevity.” On one side, Oura, WHOOP, Function Health, Neko Health and Prenuvo already sell preventive health products to large numbers of paying customers. On the other, companies such as BioAge, NewLimit and Retro Biosciences are trying to develop therapies linked to aging biology, but commercial drug revenue is still essentially absent.
The distinction is especially clear in the latest numbers. WHOOP recently passed 3 million members after adding its latest million in seven months. Function Health said during its recent $450 million growth financing that it had passed 500,000 members and processed more than 100 million lab tests since launching in 2023. Neko Health has completed more than 100,000 scans. Meanwhile, BioAge’s latest quarterly results showed $2.4 million of collaboration revenue against $31.8 million of operating expenses.
So we should judge the models differently. For prevention businesses, we can already look at customer acquisition, repeat purchases, pricing and scale. For longevity biotech, the useful question today is whether the research model can attract enough capital and pharmaceutical money to survive until an actual drug reaches the market.
Is longevity already a real consumer market today?
Yes. Longevity has moved well beyond a tiny biohacker niche, although most of the money is currently going into measurement, prevention and health optimization rather than drugs that extend human lifespan.
The scale of the leading companies makes that hard to dismiss. Oura is around five million paid members and generated roughly $1 billion of revenue in 2025. WHOOP has now crossed 3 million members, up from 2.5 million only a few months earlier. Function Health has passed 500,000 members. Prenuvo says more than 170,000 people have gone through its preventive imaging system, while Neko has already performed more than 100,000 scans and attracted more than 350,000 registrations and waitlist sign-ups.
These businesses are also selling very different products at very different prices. Oura starts with a roughly $400 ring and a $5.99 monthly membership. Function charges $365 a year for more than 160 lab tests and ongoing interpretation. Neko’s upcoming US scan costs $499. Prenuvo can charge several thousand dollars for its deeper MRI-based programs. High-end clinic memberships can reach five figures a year.
That range tells us something useful about the market. Longevity demand exists at several price points, from a few dollars a month to more than $20,000 a year. What consumers are buying today is mostly the ability to measure more, catch problems earlier and get continuous guidance about what to do next.
The actual lifespan-extension market is much smaller because there is still no approved therapy that can credibly be sold to healthy people as “this will make you live longer.” Commercial longevity has arrived before longevity medicine in the strictest sense.
As this slide shows, and as featured in our longevity market deck, online search interest in longevity has been steadily increasing
Why are people paying cash for longevity services instead of waiting for insurance?
Cash-pay works unusually well in longevity because consumers want more preventive information than traditional healthcare systems usually reimburse.
Function Health is a good example. Its $365 annual membership is entirely outside insurance. Members pay directly for repeated lab testing, clinician review and access to additional diagnostics. Prenuvo has built a large direct-to-consumer MRI business the same way. Neko also sells its preventive scan directly to people instead of requiring a doctor to prove medical necessity to an insurer first.
This lets companies move much faster. A preventive-health startup can launch a new panel, scanner or monitoring product as soon as customers value it enough to pay. An insurance-funded service has a much harder job: it needs clinical evidence, coding, reimbursement negotiations and usually proof that the intervention improves outcomes or reduces costs.
The downside is obvious in the customer mix. A $365 membership can reach a fairly broad professional audience. A $2,000 or $10,000 preventive program naturally starts much higher up the income distribution.
There is also a medical tension we should keep in view. Commercial demand for more screening has grown faster than clinical agreement about how much screening is useful. The American College of Radiology still says there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine total-body MRI screening for asymptomatic people at low risk. Recent research continues to find potentially important abnormalities alongside a large number of incidental findings.
For now, self-pay removes the reimbursement bottleneck. It does not remove the need to prove that more testing actually leads to better health.
Are preventive-health memberships the best pure longevity business model right now?
Yes. Among companies built specifically around longevity and prevention, recurring diagnostic memberships currently have the cleanest combination of real demand, repeat revenue and room to expand customer spending.
Function Health shows how powerful the model can become when the physical infrastructure is mostly outsourced. Members pay $365 a year, receive more than 160 lab tests, test twice annually and can buy additional diagnostics. Function uses external laboratory infrastructure rather than building a nationwide blood-draw network itself. That helped it reach more than 500,000 members within roughly three years of launch.
The numbers are getting large. At 500,000 members, multiplying the current $365 sticker price by the member count gives about $182.5 million of annual membership value before we adjust for promotions, timing, churn or extra services. That is not reported revenue, but it gives the right order of magnitude. The company also sells add-on tests and imaging, so the membership fee is only one part of what a mature customer can eventually spend.
Function has also been moving deeper into the customer relationship. It acquired MRI startup Ezra, reduced membership pricing from $499 to $365, added personalized protocols and recently launched a connector that lets members bring their health data into AI systems such as ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity. The product is becoming a health-data account that happens to begin with blood testing.
Neko reaches the same recurring relationship through physical scanning. Prenuvo is doing it through MRI, blood biomarkers and annual memberships. Different products are converging on the same commercial idea: establish a health baseline, keep updating it and make leaving increasingly inconvenient because the customer’s longitudinal history lives inside the platform.
| Company | Core model today | Current scale signal | How revenue repeats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Function Health | Annual lab-testing membership | 500,000+ members; 100M+ tests processed | Annual membership, repeated testing, add-ons, imaging |
| Neko Health | Preventive health scan | 100,000+ completed scans; 350,000+ registrations/waitlist | Repeat scans and future recurring health monitoring |
| Prenuvo | Preventive MRI + health membership | 170,000+ screenings | Annual imaging, biomarker testing and clinical follow-up |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest longevity market report.
This chart, featured in our longevity market deck, illustrates yearly VC funding for longevity startups
Can full-body scans really become a repeat longevity business?
Yes, and repeat behavior is becoming much clearer, although preventive imaging still carries more clinical and capital risk than blood testing or wearables.
Neko Health provides the most interesting evidence. The company has said that roughly 75% of customers book and prepay for their next scan before leaving the first one. That is an unusually strong retention signal for a health service that people could easily treat as a one-time curiosity.
The company is now testing whether that demand travels. Its first US clinic is scheduled to open in New York in September 2026, with a $499 scan and roughly 25,000 people already on the local waitlist. The clinic will have seven scan rooms. If that early demand converts, Neko will have evidence that the model can move from Sweden and the UK into the much larger US self-pay health market.
Prenuvo is further along in MRI. It has completed more than 170,000 screenings and recently launched annual memberships built around repeated imaging, biomarker testing and clinical interpretation. It has also introduced a shorter focused scan, partly to create a cheaper and easier entry point for people unwilling to start with the full one-hour MRI experience.
The companies are taking different technological routes. Neko uses cameras, thermal imaging, cardiovascular measurements, blood markers and other sensors. Prenuvo revolves around MRI. Neko can therefore offer a much lower entry price, while Prenuvo gets deeper structural imaging and charges substantially more.
The biggest open question is medical utility over many years. Imaging businesses have already proved that consumers will pay. We still need stronger evidence showing when routine screening of asymptomatic people improves outcomes enough to justify the extra follow-up, false alarms and healthcare spending it can create.
| Model | Typical consumer entry point | Evidence of repeat demand | Main weakness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neko Health | $499 in the US | About 75% reportedly prepay for the next scan | Physical rollout and still-developing outcome evidence |
| Prenuvo | Roughly $1,000 to several thousand dollars depending on program | Annual membership launched after 170,000+ screenings | Higher price and MRI-heavy operating model |
| Function / Ezra | Around $899 annual MRI for Function members | Imaging sits inside an existing recurring membership | Competes with a growing number of scan providers |
Can high-end longevity clinics scale beyond rich customers?
High-end longevity clinics can become good businesses, but today they look much more like premium healthcare networks than mass-market technology companies.
Fountain Life shows how much revenue a single customer can generate. Its Core program has been marketed around $10,500 and its Apex program above $20,000. Next Health’s high-end concierge memberships can exceed $10,000 a year before extra therapies and services. At those prices, a clinic can build meaningful revenue without needing hundreds of thousands of users.
The customer can also spend across many categories. A clinic may start with blood tests and medical reviews, then sell imaging, hormone-related care, recovery services, IV treatments and other interventions. That creates much higher annual wallet share than a wearable or basic lab subscription.
Physical delivery makes the economics harder. Locations require expensive equipment, medical staff, regulatory compliance and enough affluent customers within driving distance. Adding another thousand customers can mean opening another site.
Franchising helps with that problem. Next Health has been expanding through franchise partners, allowing outside operators to fund much of the local build-out. Restore Hyper Wellness has already pushed the wellness-clinic format past 200 US locations. Its franchise disclosure documents show estimated startup investments approaching or exceeding $1 million per location and recurring royalties paid to the parent.
Restore’s disclosures are also a useful warning. Established studios generated around $1 million of average annual sales in 2025, but averages among surviving locations hide meaningful variation, including closures. A franchise system can scale geographically while individual operators still experience very different returns.
We therefore see premium clinics as a proven niche and franchising as a workable distribution strategy. The leap from affluent niche to broad healthcare network remains much harder.
This chart, featured in our longevity market deck, looks at Function Health’s strategy in longevity
Are Oura and WHOOP actually the strongest longevity businesses today?
Commercially, yes. Oura and WHOOP currently have the strongest evidence of scale, retention and recurring revenue among businesses closely tied to the longevity movement.
Oura is already operating at a completely different order of magnitude from most dedicated longevity startups. The company has reached roughly five million paid members, generated about $1 billion of revenue in 2025 and filed confidentially for an IPO. Oura has also said that more than 80% of members renew after their first year.
WHOOP’s recent acceleration is just as striking. Its member base passed 3 million after the latest million users arrived in only seven months. The company said 2025 bookings grew 103%, ended the year at roughly a $1.1 billion run rate and generated positive operating cash flow.
Those numbers make wearables more than a side category in longevity. Both companies have gradually widened their positioning from fitness or sleep tracking into preventive health, stress, recovery, cardiovascular signals, hormonal health, metabolic monitoring and health coaching.
Oura has pushed especially far. The Ring 5 tracks more than 50 health metrics, while newer software includes health records, lab uploads, AI guidance, GLP-1-related insights and integrations with glucose monitoring. A recent Wall Street Journal report also described Oura reorganizing its technology leadership around proprietary health-focused AI models.
The commercial lesson is simple. A company that measures the customer every day gets far more chances to create value than a service the customer visits once a year.
WHOOP adds another important piece of evidence: engagement. CEO Will Ahmed has said 83% of monthly active users open the app on a given day. Even allowing for the fact that this is a company-reported figure, that level of routine use explains why subscriptions can remain sticky. The product becomes part of how the customer interprets sleep, exercise, stress and recovery each morning.
For now, the strongest longevity-adjacent businesses look more like data subscriptions attached to the body than traditional healthcare services.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest longevity market report.
Why does owning years of health data matter so much in longevity?
Longitudinal health data may become the deepest moat in longevity because every additional measurement makes the next recommendation more personalized and makes switching providers more annoying.
Consider the difference between three products. A laboratory gives us a blood result. A scanner gives us an image. A wearable gives us tens of thousands of measurements across months and years. The first two can still become recurring businesses, but continuous monitoring starts with a structural advantage: the customer is constantly adding data to the system.
That explains why companies across the market are trying to expand beyond their original product. Oura is adding health records, blood testing and glucose integrations. Function is adding imaging, AI interpretation and protocols. Prenuvo has added blood biomarkers around MRI. Neko wants customers to return so each scan can be compared with the previous one.
The competitive advantage grows when those datasets can talk to each other. A platform that knows how someone’s resting heart rate, sleep, blood pressure, ApoB, body composition and MRI findings have changed over five years can produce a very different product from a company seeing one isolated reading.
The business effect is equally important. The customer may arrive for a ring, blood test or scan, but the company can later sell interpretation, coaching, diagnostics and clinical services without rebuilding the relationship from zero.
This is why we think the best longevity companies will increasingly compete over ownership of the health record rather than ownership of one specific test.
This chart, featured in our longevity market deck, illustrates yearly funding for longevity startups
Are supplements and biological-age tests real longevity businesses or just easy upsells?
They are real businesses, especially because both naturally create repeat purchases, but they are easier to copy and harder to defend scientifically than diagnostics or continuous health platforms.
Supplements have an obvious commercial advantage: customers consume the product and need another one. Elysium Health sells Basis as a recurring supplement subscription. Tally Health wraps supplements directly into a $129-a-month longevity membership. Companies can get monthly revenue without operating clinics, buying scanners or waiting for drug approval.
The model can reach substantial scale. Thorne became a large supplements and testing company before L Catterton acquired it in a transaction valued at roughly $680 million. That does not tell us whether any specific supplement extends lifespan, but it clearly shows that consumers will spend heavily on science-positioned health products.
Biological-age testing has a similar attraction but works better when it feeds a broader program. Tally Health’s standalone age test costs a few hundred dollars, while its membership generates more than $1,500 of annualized revenue per customer at the current monthly price. The test creates the initial score; repeated tests, recommendations and supplements create the longer relationship.
TruDiagnostic uses the same basic loop with epigenetic age testing. Customers establish a baseline, change behavior or interventions and then test again to see whether the biological-age score moved.
We should keep the scientific claim separate from the commercial one. Biological-age clocks can measure patterns associated with aging, but improving a proprietary age score has not been established as equivalent to adding healthy years to a person’s life.
That weakens standalone testing as a moat. It works much better as a retention device inside a larger health platform.
Does longevity biotech have a working business model yet?
Longevity biotech currently works as a funded drug-development business, while meaningful product sales remain years away.
BioAge gives us the cleanest numbers because it is public. In its latest Q2 2026 results, the company reported $2.4 million of collaboration revenue. R&D spending was $24.4 million, general and administrative expenses were $7.4 million, and the quarterly net loss reached $26.1 million. BioAge still had $381 million of cash and investments, enough under its current plan to fund operations through 2029.
That is a perfectly normal profile for clinical-stage biotech. It is simply very different from the economics of Function or WHOOP. BioAge’s customers today are effectively investors and pharmaceutical partners funding drug development, rather than millions of people buying a longevity treatment.
NewLimit is even earlier. The company recently raised $435 million at a reported $3.1 billion valuation to pursue epigenetic reprogramming and related therapies. Its first human trials are still ahead. Retro Biosciences and Altos Labs sit in the same broad category: enormous capital has been committed before commercial products exist.
That capital should be taken seriously. Investors are placing billion-dollar bets on the idea that aging biology can produce valuable drugs. What we cannot call proven yet is the eventual product market.
The important difference between consumer longevity and longevity biotech today is timing. Consumers can buy another blood test next week. A biotech investor may wait a decade to discover whether the therapy works at all.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest longevity market report.
This chart, featured in our longevity market deck, compares the main business model options for longevity clinics
How do longevity biotechs make money before they have an approved drug?
Longevity biotechs survive by selling access to promising biology through research collaborations, licensing deals and milestone payments while equity investors fund the rest.
BioAge’s Novartis collaboration shows how the model works. The agreement can provide up to roughly $20 million in upfront and research funding, with as much as $530 million in future research, development and commercial milestones. Royalties could follow if an eventual licensed product reaches the market.
The headline number needs context. A $530 million milestone package does not mean BioAge received $530 million. The latest quarter generated $2.4 million of collaboration revenue. Most of the advertised value sits behind future scientific, regulatory and commercial achievements.
Pharma partnerships are still useful validation. Novartis and Eli Lilly are willing to put money behind BioAge’s approach to aging-related biology because the discoveries may lead to drugs in large conventional disease markets.
This gives longevity biotech a credible intermediate business model. A startup can discover targets, prove enough biology to interest a larger pharmaceutical company and exchange part of the future upside for cash, expertise and development support.
The model has worked across biotechnology for decades. Longevity companies can use it too. What is new is the source of the targets: human aging biology rather than a single traditional disease pathway.
Why do longevity drugs keep turning into obesity, liver or Alzheimer’s drugs?
Longevity companies keep entering through recognized diseases because regulators, insurers and doctors already know how to evaluate and pay for those conditions.
A company cannot currently walk into the FDA with a general claim that a drug “slows aging” and follow an established approval pathway. Geroscience researchers are working on ways to measure broader aging outcomes, but no medicine has yet been approved specifically to treat aging itself.
Company pipelines reflect that reality. BioAge describes itself around the biology of human aging, yet its active development programs target cardiometabolic disease and diabetic macular edema. NewLimit’s first planned human program is tied to alcohol-related liver disease. Retro Biosciences has been developing programs connected to neurodegenerative disease, including Alzheimer’s.
This approach solves two commercial problems at once. Clinical trials can use recognized endpoints, and a successful drug can enter an existing reimbursement market.
It also means the first major “longevity drug” may never be sold with the word longevity on the label. A therapy could emerge from aging research, improve an age-related disease and become a blockbuster through the normal pharmaceutical system.
That is probably the fastest commercial path for geroscience. We expect disease-specific drugs influenced by aging biology to arrive much earlier than pills prescribed to healthy 45-year-olds simply to make them age more slowly.
This chart, featured in our longevity market deck, illustrates how revenue is distributed across customer segments in the longevity market
Can employers and insurers make longevity mainstream?
Yes, but only the parts of longevity that can prove they improve outcomes or reduce healthcare costs are likely to win large third-party payers.
We are already seeing the first steps. Function Health offers employer programs in which companies can subsidize or fully cover memberships. Oura sells through corporate health programs and has worked with a Medicare Advantage organization to provide qualifying members with rings and memberships. HSA and FSA eligibility is also becoming common across preventive testing and imaging services.
Direct consumer spending has a ceiling. Five million people can buy an Oura Ring without insurance, but the biggest healthcare markets are ultimately funded by employers, governments and insurers.
The bar becomes much higher once another organization is paying the bill. A consumer may spend $500 because a scan gives peace of mind. An insurer wants evidence that spending $500 now reduces larger medical costs later.
Wearables have a relatively easy way to test that proposition because the marginal cost of monitoring another member is low. Blood-testing memberships are more expensive but can still be deployed broadly. Repeated whole-body MRI would need much stronger evidence because each scan has meaningful operating cost and can generate additional follow-up care.
Employer and insurer adoption could dramatically increase the size of the longevity market. It will also force the industry to separate interventions that feel useful from those that can demonstrate measurable health or economic value.
Which longevity business models have the strongest economics today?
The best economics today come from recurring products that collect more health data over time without requiring an equally large increase in staff, equipment or physical locations.
Wearables sit at one extreme. Once Oura or WHOOP has acquired a customer, software and analytics can keep improving while the same person continues paying. Hardware creates upfront revenue, and membership creates a second recurring stream.
Asset-light diagnostic memberships sit just behind them. Function can increase members without building its own laboratory in every city. It can also sell imaging and additional tests to people already inside the system.
Scanner businesses have stronger physical constraints. Neko needs clinics and proprietary equipment. Prenuvo needs MRI capacity and trained medical staff. Yet both can still produce attractive economics if repeat rates are strong enough and utilization per machine stays high.
Premium clinics can collect the most revenue per person, but growth requires more clinicians and real estate. Supplements require very little infrastructure and can produce excellent repeat economics, although competition and weak differentiation make customer acquisition and retention harder.
Biotech is the most asymmetric model. A successful therapy can eventually become vastly larger than any clinic or membership business. Until approval, the economics are dominated by cash burn, financing and milestone risk.
The model with the highest theoretical upside is currently the least commercially proven.
| Business model | How well it works today | What makes the model attractive | Main weakness | Our judgment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wearable + subscription | Very strong | Daily use, recurring revenue, huge data volume, software leverage | Hardware competition and consumer churn | Strongest proven model |
| Preventive-health membership | Very strong | Recurring testing, asset-light delivery, easy cross-sell | Must keep proving customers need repeated testing | Strongest pure longevity model |
| Repeat scanning / imaging | Strong | High willingness to pay, growing repeat behavior, valuable longitudinal data | Physical infrastructure and uncertain screening economics | Clearly working, still early |
| Premium clinic / franchise | Proven niche | Very high annual spend per customer | Labor, real estate and limited mass-market reach | Good business, weaker scalability |
| Supplements + biological-age testing | Commercially proven | Easy recurring purchases and low infrastructure needs | Crowded market and weaker scientific moat | Works, but easy to copy |
| Longevity biotech | Commercially unproven at product level | Enormous upside if a therapy succeeds | Long timelines, high cash burn and clinical failure risk | Partnership model works; end market still ahead |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest longevity market report.
This chart, featured in our longevity market deck, shows how longevity plan technology has evolved over time
Who is actually building the strongest moat in longevity?
The strongest moat is starting to form around companies that own a recurring health relationship and can keep adding new types of data to it.
Oura began with a ring and now handles continuous biometrics, health records, lab uploads, metabolic integrations and AI guidance. Function began with broad blood testing and has moved into imaging, protocols and AI access. Prenuvo began with MRI and now combines imaging with biomarkers and annual monitoring.
These moves all point in the same direction. The companies do not want to remain one-product vendors. They want to become the place where a customer understands their health.
A pure test provider can be undercut by a cheaper test. A supplement can be copied. A clinic can be replicated in another city. Longitudinal data accumulated over years is much harder to recreate instantly.
The real prize is the customer account that keeps getting richer. If someone has five years of sleep, cardiovascular, blood, metabolic and imaging data inside one system, switching means losing context as well as changing providers.
We think this is where longevity business models are heading now. Individual tests will increasingly become acquisition channels for broader health platforms.
What business models are working in the longevity market?
The longevity business models clearly working today are wearable subscriptions, recurring preventive-health memberships, repeat diagnostics and premium preventive care. Supplements also work commercially, while longevity biotech currently works mainly through fundraising, pharmaceutical partnerships and future option value.
The strongest proof comes from continuous monitoring. As seen above, Oura has reached around five million paying members and WHOOP has now crossed 3 million. Both companies have built recurring subscriptions on top of devices customers use every day, giving them engagement and data density that annual health services cannot easily match.
Dedicated longevity platforms are becoming meaningful businesses too. Function has already shown that broad diagnostic testing can support hundreds of thousands of paying members. Neko has demonstrated unusually strong repeat behavior around preventive scanning, while Prenuvo has taken whole-body imaging past 170,000 screenings and is now deliberately turning the service into an annual relationship.
Premium clinics, franchises, supplements and biological-age tests can all make money, but we see weaker moats. Clinics remain labor- and location-heavy. Supplements are easy to reproduce. Biological-age scores are commercially useful without yet being validated as equivalent to longer life.
Biotech could eventually dwarf every one of these categories. A drug that materially changes several diseases of aging could generate billions of dollars in annual revenue. We simply do not have that commercial proof today. The latest public numbers still show longevity biotechs spending far more on development than they earn from partnerships.
The most important pattern across the market is that customers already pay to reduce uncertainty about their future health. They pay to see more of their body, measure it more often and catch changes earlier. That demand is real and growing.
The companies best positioned for the next stage are the ones turning those individual measurements into a long-term health record. Once the relationship is established, the same platform can sell testing, imaging, coaching, monitoring and eventually clinical interventions.
So the winning longevity business today is less about selling “extra years” directly. It is about owning the recurring relationship through which people try to get those extra healthy years.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest longevity market report.
In our longevity market deck, we identify pain points entrepreneurs should prioritize
OUR METHODOLOGY
This analysis tests which longevity business models are genuinely working today by separating consumer preventive health, diagnostics, wearables, premium clinics, supplements and biotechnology instead of treating “longevity” as one market. We compare current demand, repeat behavior, recurring revenue, customer scale, pricing power, operating intensity, scalability, commercial maturity and defensibility.
No single metric decides the conclusion. A funding round shows access to capital without proving customer demand; a large customer count shows adoption without proving retention; and a high price point can create strong revenue per customer while limiting reach. We therefore use several operating signals together rather than letting one headline number carry the analysis.
We deliberately emphasize recent evidence because several companies in the sector have changed materially through new products, pricing, memberships, geographic expansion, acquisitions and financing. For consumer businesses, we focus on paying-member scale, repeat purchases, renewals, engagement and the ability to expand customer spend. For clinical-stage biotechnology companies, we look instead at cash runway, development progress, pharmaceutical partnerships and collaboration economics.
We also keep commercial evidence separate from scientific evidence. Repeated payment for a scan, test, wearable or supplement proves that a market exists; it does not prove that the product extends lifespan or improves long-term health outcomes. That distinction is especially important in preventive imaging, biological-age testing and supplements.
Where possible, we prioritize first-hand disclosures, regulatory filings, company pricing and product pages, financing announcements and authoritative medical or regulatory sources. Private-company membership, booking, usage and pricing figures are treated as commercial evidence, but not as substitutes for audited revenue or retention data.
Key sources include Oura’s newsroom and health-plan materials for member scale, renewal and product expansion; WHOOP’s member-growth announcement and Series G announcement for membership, bookings and cash-flow signals; and Function Health, its testing model and company announcements for pricing, repeat testing and expansion into imaging.
For preventive imaging, the main sources include Neko Health’s Series C disclosure for scan volumes, waitlist scale and repeat bookings, its New York launch announcement for US pricing and rollout, Prenuvo’s membership announcement and current plans. We use the American College of Radiology for the clinical context around total-body MRI screening in asymptomatic people.
For biotechnology, we use BioAge Labs’ Q2 2026 results, its SEC 10-Q and Novartis collaboration disclosure, alongside NewLimit’s Series C announcement, NewLimit’s program description and FDA material on emerging aging treatments and biomarkers. For recurring supplement and biological-age models, we use Tally Health and Elysium Health; for clinic and franchise scalability, we use Restore Hyper Wellness.
The final judgments come from structured aggregation rather than a mechanical score: break the market into distinct models, collect the strongest recent evidence for each, compare the evidence on repeat demand and scalability, and then separate what is already commercially proven from what is merely well-funded, scientifically interesting or still waiting for product-level proof.
This chart, featured in our longevity market deck, illustrates how revenue is distributed across Europe, Asia, North America, Africa, and South America in the longevity market
