Is the Longevity Market growing now?

Why is the longevity market so hard to read right now?

The longevity market is hard to read right now because the recent evidence is genuinely split.

Some signals look like acceleration. Other signals look like cleanup.

The positive case is easy to see if we look at the last few months. In June 2026, Life Biosciences dosed the first human patient with ER-100, a partial cellular reprogramming therapy for age-related optic nerve disease. That is not just another mouse-study headline. It means one of the most ambitious ideas in longevity, reprogramming aged cells to behave younger, has entered a real human trial. In the same month, NewLimit raised $435 million to push its reprogramming programs toward human studies. That is a very large amount for a biotech company in a still-unproven field, so it tells us top-tier investors are still willing to underwrite big longevity science when the platform looks serious.

The consumer side is also moving. WHOOP raised $575 million in March 2026 at a $10.1 billion valuation. Oura raised more than $900 million in October 2025 after saying it had sold 5.5 million rings and was on track to pass $1 billion in annual sales. Function Health raised $298 million in November 2025 at a $2.5 billion valuation. These are not tiny “biohacker niche” signals anymore. They show that prevention, health tracking, lab testing, and proactive health data are attracting large-scale capital.

But the negative side is just as important. AbbVie ended its 11-year collaboration with Calico in late 2025. That matters because Calico was one of the most symbolic aging-biology bets in the world: Alphabet-backed, long-term, well-funded, and built around the idea that aging biology could become drug discovery. If AbbVie walks away after more than a decade, it tells us big pharma is not blindly buying the longevity story.

Unity Biotechnology is another warning. It was once one of the most visible senolytics companies, but shareholders approved liquidation in 2025. That is not a small failure in the category. It shows that one of the first public-market “aging as a drug target” stories did not translate into durable clinical or commercial proof.

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

What are analysts saying about the longevity market?

Analysts are mostly saying the longevity market will grow, but we have to be careful because they are not all measuring the same thing.

Mordor Intelligence estimates the longevity market at about $31.6 billion in 2026 and expects it to reach about $46.9 billion by 2031. That implies an 8.18% CAGR. The Business Research Company estimates the longevity biotech market at $23.2 billion in 2026, up from $20.9 billion in 2025, which implies 11% growth in one year. Market Research Future estimates the broader longevity market at $23.5 billion in 2025 and $63 billion by 2035. SNS Insider puts the market at $27.6 billion in 2025 and forecasts $67 billion by 2035.

The useful part is not the exact number but the direction. Different research firms, using different definitions, are still pointing toward growth. That is a positive signal.

But we should not overread it. These reports mix different things.

Some focus on longevity biotech: senolytics, cellular therapies, gene therapies, anti-aging drug discovery, and age-related disease therapeutics. Others include broader preventive health, diagnostics, wellness, supplements, clinics, and health optimization. A $23 billion “longevity biotech” market and a much broader “healthy aging” market are not the same thing.

So analyst forecasts help us set the frame: the category is not expected to shrink.

But they do not answer the real question by themselves. Forecasts can miss what is happening on the ground right now. To answer the question properly, we need to look at current funding, revenue, adoption, product launches, clinical progress, failures, regulation, and customer behavior.

And this is what we will do right now, so we can give you a solid answer.

Is the longevity market raising serious money right now?

Yes, the longevity market is raising serious money right now.

Also, the money is concentrated in a few companies that investors see as credible enough to survive the next phase.

NewLimit’s $435 million raise in June 2026 is the strongest signal. For a company working on cellular reprogramming, it does look like clinical-readiness money. Investors are basically saying: this science is still risky, but if it works, the upside is large enough to justify a very expensive bet.

Life Biosciences’ $80 million raise in April 2026 is smaller, but the timing makes it more meaningful. It came shortly before the company dosed its first ER-100 patient. That makes the round more than a generic biotech financing. It is tied to a real human-trial transition.

Loyal’s $100 million raise in February 2026 also matters, but in a different way. It is not human longevity but dog longevity. Still, that makes it useful because dogs may offer a faster regulatory and commercial path for lifespan-extension claims than humans. If a company can prove an aging-related benefit in pets first, it creates a more practical bridge between longevity science and a real market.

Then there is the consumer side. WHOOP raised $575 million, Function Health raised $298 million, and Oura raised more than $900 million. These are stronger demand signals than most biotech rounds because they are connected to existing customers, subscriptions, tests, devices, or usage. Investors are funding behavior that already exists.

So yes, serious money is flowing.

Is longevity funding going everywhere?

No, longevity funding is not going everywhere. This is one of the clearest things we can say.

A recent funding tracker covering publicly disclosed pure-play longevity rounds from July 2025 to June 2026 found 19 equity rounds, 18 unique companies, and about $1.20 billion raised. At first glance, that sounds like a healthy market. But once we look underneath the total, the picture changes.

The top deal alone represented 36.3% of all disclosed capital. The top three deals represented 68.3%. The top ten captured 94.6%. That means the headline number is not showing a broad funding wave. It is showing a small number of very large rounds doing most of the work.

The average disclosed round was about $63 million, but the median was only $18 million. That gap is the whole story. If the average is more than three times the median, the market is being pulled upward by a few outsized winners. It is not a market where the typical company is suddenly raising huge money.

This actually makes the market more interesting. A weak market would have no capital. A hype market would fund everything. This looks like neither. It looks like a selective market where investors are still excited, but only when the company has a strong reason to exist.

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

Are new longevity startups still entering the market?

Yes, new longevity startups are still entering the market, but the new company formation these days is much more practical than the old “reverse aging” narrative suggests.

In the same recent funding tracker, seed was the most common stage by deal count: 6 of the 19 disclosed rounds. That means founders are still entering the category. But those seed rounds represented only about 4.3% of total disclosed capital. So startup formation is alive, but the big money is not sitting at the earliest stage. It is sitting with companies that look closer to scale, clinical validation, or platform control.

The type of startup entering is also important. Ultralight raised funding in 2026 to build software for longevity, preventive, functional, and integrative medicine clinics. That is not a miracle-drug pitch but more infrastructure for clinics that already exist. TMRW raised seed funding in Australia for a longevity membership and clinic model. Biopeak raised funding in India around diagnostic-led longevity care. Generation Lab and GlycanAge raised around biological-age and inflammation-linked biomarker testing.

Are big companies and scale-ups launching more longevity products?

Yes, and this may be one of the strongest signs that the market is growing right now.

Apple added hypertension notifications and sleep score to Apple Watch Series 11 in September 2025. Apple is not branding this as “longevity,” but that is exactly why it matters. When Apple turns blood-pressure risk and sleep quality into everyday consumer features, it pulls preventive health into mainstream behavior. A feature like hypertension notification is not a niche biohacker toy. It is a mass-market health habit.

Garmin’s Q1 2026 results make the same point from another angle. Its fitness segment grew 42%, driven by advanced wearables. That is useful because Garmin is a mature public company. A startup can tell a nice story. A public company has to report segment revenue. If advanced wearables are still driving 42% growth inside a large business, that suggests demand for health monitoring is still expanding, not just moving from one startup to another.

Oura’s Ring 5 launch in May 2026 also fits the same pattern. The company is not just selling steps or calories but pushing deeper into sleep, readiness, heart health, symptom detection, and GLP-1-related tracking. That matters because the ring is becoming less of a gadget and more of a daily health interface.

Neko Health’s U.S. launch is another practical signal. It said it delivered six times more scans in 2025 than in 2024, had more than 300,000 global signups, and planned its first U.S. location in New York for spring 2026. That is not proof of mass adoption yet, but it is strong proof of consumer curiosity turning into booked preventive care.

So yes, products are launching.

Are longevity companies showing real revenue growth now?

Yes, but mostly in the parts of longevity that people can buy and use today.

Oura is the clearest example. The company said it generated more than $500 million in revenue in 2024 and was on track to pass $1 billion in 2025. That is not just “nice growth.” It means Oura may have doubled revenue in a year while selling a device that also has a subscription layer. For longevity, that is important because it proves consumers will pay repeatedly for health data, not just once for hardware.

Garmin gives us a different kind of proof. Its fitness segment grew 42% in Q1 2026 and generated $158 million of operating income. It shows this is not just growth bought with losses. There is profitable demand for advanced health and fitness wearables inside a public company.

Midi Health is another useful signal because it shows longevity becoming healthcare, not just wellness. The company reportedly reached a $150 million annual revenue run rate in 2025, up from about $60 million at the end of 2024. That is a 2.5x jump in run rate. The key is not only the growth rate. It is what the revenue represents: patients using care for menopause, hormones, midlife health, cardiovascular risk, bone health, brain health, and other age-related issues.

Function Health’s $298 million Series B at a $2.5 billion valuation is more of an investor signal than a revenue signal, because the company does not disclose revenue in the same way. But it says it is trusted by hundreds of thousands of members. That matters because lab testing only becomes a big business if people repeat it, understand it, and use it to guide behavior over time.

So yes, there is real revenue growth.

Are customers spending more on longevity right now?

Yes, they are spending more. However, we need to separate three types of spending: proven spending, likely spending, and noisy spending.

Proven spending is easiest to see in subscriptions and reported revenue. Oura’s expected $1 billion-plus annual sales and WHOOP’s reported $1.1 billion revenue run rate show that consumers are willing to pay hundreds of dollars a year for continuous health tracking. That matters because a subscription is a stronger signal than a one-time purchase. It means the customer is not just curious. They are keeping the product in their life.

Likely spending is visible in preventive health and diagnostics. Function Health charges a relatively accessible annual price for broad lab testing, and it has attracted hundreds of thousands of members. Neko’s 300,000-plus global signups show high intent for preventive scans. Prenuvo launching an annual imaging membership in 2026 is another signal: the company is trying to move from one-off “I’m curious” scans to repeat yearly health tracking. That is exactly what markets do when they believe demand can become recurring.

Noisy spending is the expensive longevity-clinic layer. Some clinics charge thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for packages involving NAD+, peptides, ozone, hyperbaric oxygen, hormone protocols, stem cells, or other interventions. This proves that affluent consumers are spending, but it is a weaker signal because we often do not know retention, outcomes, medical necessity, or repeat behavior.

So yes, customers are spending more.

Is adoption of longevity products improving right now?

Yes, adoption is improving, and different kinds of adoption are showing up at the same time.

Oura is the strongest adoption signal because it is not just a “people tried it once” number. If the company has sold more than 5.5 million rings and says more than half of those sales happened in the past year, that means adoption is accelerating on a large base.

For a device that costs several hundred dollars and often comes with a subscription, that is much stronger than app downloads or website traffic. It suggests health tracking has become a repeat behavior, not a one-time biohacking experiment.

Neko’s 300,000-plus global signups mean something different. A signup is not as strong as a paid subscriber or completed scan. But it is still meaningful because Neko is selling a high-friction product. People have to book a physical visit, complete a scan, and engage with medical-style results. A large waitlist before U.S. launch tells us there is real consumer pull for proactive diagnostics, even before the category is fully normalized.

Midi Health’s 20,000 weekly patients are another type of adoption signal. This is not a wearable or a curiosity waitlist. It is recurring healthcare usage. That makes it stronger than a generic “interest in longevity” datapoint. It shows that one piece of longevity, women’s midlife health, is becoming an actual care category with repeated patient demand.

WHOOP and Garmin add the continuous-monitoring side. WHOOP’s member base shows that people will pay for performance and recovery data. Garmin’s 42% fitness-segment growth in Q1 2026 matters because it comes from a mature company, not a startup press release. If a mature wearable segment can still grow that fast, the broader health-monitoring habit is not saturated.

Are longevity therapeutics finally breaking through?

Not really, but the recent progress is real.

Basically, longevity therapeutics are not commercially proven yet, but they are moving from theory into regulated human testing.

Life Biosciences dosing the first ER-100 patient in June 2026 is the most important recent signal. The trial is small and focused on optic neuropathies such as glaucoma and NAION, so we should not pretend it proves systemic age reversal. But it matters because partial epigenetic reprogramming has been one of the biggest scientific promises in longevity. Human dosing turns that promise into a testable medical question.

NewLimit’s $435 million raise supports the same idea. The company is preparing human clinical trials, including a liver-focused program. Again, this is not revenue proof. But it is a serious vote that investors believe the science is mature enough to justify clinical spending.

Cambrian Bio’s ARPA-H funding is another kind of signal. The company received up to $30.8 million in March 2026 for a selective mTORC1 inhibitor program aimed at preserving intrinsic capacity in older adults. That matters because it links longevity to measurable function, not just lifespan language. If a therapy can preserve muscle, cognition, immunity, mobility, or resilience, it becomes much easier to evaluate clinically.

Loyal’s dog longevity program also matters. It may sound adjacent, but dogs are a useful bridge market. They age faster than humans, owners spend heavily on pets, and the regulatory path may be more practical. If lifespan or healthspan claims get validated in companion animals first, that could shape how the human longevity market thinks about endpoints.

Are longevity failures becoming more visible too?

Yes, and this is why the longevity market should not be described as a clean boom.

Unity Biotechnology is the clearest cautionary case. It was one of the most visible companies in senolytics, a field built around clearing senescent cells. In 2025, the company went through delisting, dissolution, and liquidation steps. The thing is, it was not a random fringe company. It was one of the public symbols of early longevity biotech. Its failure tells us the market will not reward aging-biology narratives without clinical proof.

AbbVie ending its Calico collaboration sends a different signal. Calico had Alphabet backing, long timelines, serious scientific ambition, and a major pharma partner. If AbbVie ends that relationship after 11 years, it does not mean Calico has no science. But it does mean big pharma will not keep supporting broad aging research indefinitely unless the pipeline fits strategic priorities.

BioAge also reminds us how hard the space is. The company had a high-profile aging-biology story, but the broader public biotech market has been unforgiving when clinical data disappoints. In longevity biotech, a platform narrative is not enough once investors start demanding trial results.

So yes, failures are visible.

Is regulation starting to bite the longevity market?

Yes, definitely, regulation is harsh in the longevity market, especially where companies move from wellness language into medical claims.

WHOOP is the best recent example. In July 2025, the FDA warned the company that its Blood Pressure Insights feature was being marketed without clearance or approval. That is important because WHOOP is one of the strongest consumer-health companies in the market. If even a well-funded, sophisticated company gets regulatory pressure, smaller longevity startups should assume the line between wellness and medicine is getting more serious.

Full-body MRI is another pressure point. The American College of Radiology has said there is not enough evidence to recommend total-body MRI screening for asymptomatic people without risk factors or family history. That does not mean the category has no value. It means mass screening still has to prove that earlier detection leads to better outcomes, not just more findings, more anxiety, and more follow-up procedures.

Peptides, stem cells, exosomes, NAD+ infusions, ozone, and other clinic interventions are also exposed. The customer demand is there, but the regulatory and evidence base is uneven. Some of these products may become more legitimate over time. Others may get pushed back if claims are too aggressive.

So regulation is not killing the longevity market, but it definitely is forcing the market to grow up. It’s probably a good thing.

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

Are partnerships and acquisitions helping the longevity market grow?

Not really. Actually, not every strategic signal is positive.

WHOOP’s March 2026 round included strategic and high-profile backers such as Abbott, Mayo Clinic, Qatar Investment Authority, Mubadala, Cristiano Ronaldo, LeBron James, and Rory McIlroy.

The celebrity names get attention, but Abbott and Mayo Clinic are the more important signal. They show that preventive health tracking is moving closer to serious healthcare institutions, not only sports performance.

Function Health acquiring Ezra in 2025 is another useful signal. It moved Function beyond lab testing into whole-body imaging. That matters because longevity consumers do not want disconnected products. They want one place to combine bloodwork, imaging, wearables, and medical interpretation. The market is starting to bundle around that need.

Prenuvo launching an annual membership in 2026 also fits this pattern. The whole-body scan category is trying to become a repeat preventive-health product, not a one-time luxury scan. If imaging, biomarkers, and clinical guidance get bundled into memberships, the market becomes more predictable.

But the AbbVie-Calico breakup is the counterweight. It shows that strategic partnerships around hardcore aging biology are not automatically strengthening. Big companies may like specific applications, such as eye disease, metabolic health, imaging, or wearables. They are less clearly willing to fund “aging biology” as a broad open-ended bet.

Are public companies proving the longevity market is strong?

Rather no. Public companies prove that health-monitoring demand is strong, yes. However, they do not yet prove that pure longevity biotech is strong.

Garmin is the strongest public-company signal. In Q1 2026, total revenue grew 14%. This is not a startup valuation or a private funding round but reported revenue from a large public company. The fitness segment also produced $158 million of operating income, which means the demand is not just growth-at-any-cost.

Apple gives a product-strategy signal rather than a segment-revenue signal. Apple Watch Series 11 added hypertension notifications and sleep score. Apple is effectively teaching millions of consumers to think of the wrist as a preventive-health interface. That is a big deal for longevity because it normalizes health monitoring before symptoms appear.

Niagen Bioscience is more modest. Its Q1 2026 numbers showed some growth in Tru Niagen and ingredient revenue, but nothing like the acceleration we see in wearables. That suggests consumer NAD-related products still have demand, but they are not showing the same kind of breakout as devices and subscriptions.

On the pure biotech side, public-market proof is weaker. Unity’s liquidation is the clearest negative. Public investors are not rewarding longevity science just because it sounds ambitious. They want clinical data, regulatory paths, and credible endpoints.

Is GLP-1 demand helping the longevity market?

Yes, GLP-1 demand is helping the longevity market indirectly. It may be one of the most important hidden growth drivers recently.

GLP-1 drugs are not longevity products in the classic sense. But they make millions of people think about metabolic health, weight loss, muscle loss, protein intake, exercise, cardiovascular risk, and long-term maintenance.

That creates demand for the tools around the drug: wearables, lab testing, body-composition scans, coaching, strength training, sleep tracking, and preventive care.

Oura adding GLP-1-related tracking is a useful signal because it shows how fast adjacent products adapt when a new health behavior becomes mainstream. A person using GLP-1s does not just need a prescription. They need to understand whether they are losing fat or muscle, how sleep and recovery are changing, whether training is improving, and whether biomarkers are moving in the right direction.

Function Health benefits from the same movement because lab testing becomes more valuable when consumers are actively trying to change metabolic risk. WHOOP and Garmin benefit because body recomposition creates a reason to track recovery, strain, and sleep. Midi benefits because midlife women are often dealing with weight, hormones, metabolic risk, and cardiovascular prevention at the same time.

So GLP-1s pull longevity away from fantasy. They make the market more practical, we could say.

Is the longevity market still too dependent on hype?

Yes, honestly, and this is still the biggest weakness in the market.

The problem is that very strong demand exists next to uneven evidence. That creates a perfect environment for clinics and brands to sell certainty before the science deserves it.

The expensive clinic layer is the clearest example. Recent reporting on longevity clinics described a booming market around NAD+ infusions, ozone treatments, hyperbaric oxygen, chelation, stem cells, peptides, and other interventions. Some may have legitimate medical uses in specific contexts. But many broad anti-aging claims still run ahead of large-scale evidence.

Full-body MRI has the same tension. Consumers want earlier detection. That is understandable. But radiology experts warn that scanning healthy people can create false positives, incidental findings, unnecessary follow-ups, and unclear outcome benefits. The market demand is real, but medical proof is not equally strong for every use case.

Peptides are another example. Consumer interest is high, and some regulatory pathways may shift. But “interest is high” is not the same as “the treatment is proven for longevity.” That distinction matters because hype can grow revenue in the short term while damaging trust later.

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

Are investors getting more interested in longevity right now?

Yes, at least at the top of the longevity market.

Basically, longevity investors are interested, but they are becoming much more selective.

The recent mega-rounds prove top-tier interest. NewLimit, WHOOP, Oura, Function Health, Life Biosciences, Loyal, Tenpoint, and Aeovian all attracted meaningful capital in the recent window.

That is enough to say investors have not walked away from longevity.

But the ratios show the real story. In the recent pure-play funding sample, the top three rounds captured 68.3% of disclosed capital. The top ten captured 94.6%. That means investor interest is concentrated. If a company looks like a category leader, it can raise a lot. If it looks like a generic anti-aging startup, it probably struggles.

The segment split also matters. Preventive health platforms captured only 2 of 19 deals but about 25.7% of capital. Healthy aging clinics had 5 of 19 deals but only 3.5% of capital.

That tells us investors are more willing to fund scalable platforms than clinic-by-clinic expansion. Clinics may be commercially interesting, but they do not absorb venture capital the same way software, diagnostics, or therapeutics platforms do.

Is demand currently rising in the longevity market?

Yes, customer demand is rising.

Oura’s device sales and subscriber base are strong because they show people are keeping health tracking inside their daily routine. WHOOP’s member base works the same way. These are not one-time event-attendance numbers. They suggest consumers are willing to pay for an ongoing relationship with their health data.

Neko’s waitlist is weaker than paid retention, but still useful because it shows demand for a high-friction service.

Nobody accidentally signs up for a full-body preventive scan in the same way they accidentally download an app. The waitlist suggests people are actively looking for a new kind of healthcare experience.

Midi’s weekly patient volume is even stronger because it shows real care usage. When a company serves around 20,000 patients per week, demand is not just aspirational. It is operational. It means clinicians, prescriptions, follow-ups, insurance, and patient workflows are happening every week.

Events and conferences add a softer signal. They show attention, community, and commercial energy, but they are weaker than subscribers or revenue. A conference can be crowded even if the market is overheated. So we should use events as supporting evidence, not primary proof.

So, is the longevity market growing right now?

Yes, the longevity market is growing right now, but it is growing in a very specific way.

It is not growing evenly across everything called longevity. The strongest current growth is in measurable prevention: wearables, diagnostics, lab testing, body scans, women’s midlife care, metabolic health, and health-data platforms. That is where we see revenue, paid subscribers, member growth, patient volume, product launches, and public-company segment growth.

Longevity biotech is also moving, but it is earlier and riskier. Life Biosciences entering human testing, NewLimit raising $435 million, Cambrian getting ARPA-H support, Tenpoint raising for aging-eye disease, and Loyal advancing dog longevity all show progress. But these are mostly clinical or regulatory milestones, not mass-market revenue proof.

The negative evidence is too big to ignore. Unity’s liquidation, AbbVie-Calico ending, WHOOP’s FDA warning, whole-body MRI skepticism, peptide and clinic scrutiny, and biotech funding selectivity all show that the market is being pressure-tested.

So, yes, the longevity market is currently growing, but the center of gravity has moved. The market is less about vague anti-aging promises and more about measurable healthspan. The winners are the companies that can turn longevity into a repeated behavior, a clinical workflow, a regulated product, or a measurable outcome.

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

Question	Verdict	Comment
What do analysts say?	Yes	Forecasts broadly point to growth, but definitions vary a lot.
Is serious money still flowing?	Yes	Large checks are going to companies with scale, clinical progress, or recurring demand.
Is funding going everywhere?	No	Top three recent pure-play rounds captured 68.3% of disclosed capital.
Are startups still entering?	Yes	Seed activity exists, but early-stage rounds capture little total capital.
Are scale-ups launching products?	Yes	Apple, Garmin, Oura, Neko, and Prenuvo are expanding preventive health offers.
Is revenue growing?	Yes	Oura, Garmin, WHOOP, and Midi show spending beyond hype.
Are customers spending more?	Yes	Spending is strongest in subscriptions, diagnostics, scans, and virtual care.
Is adoption improving?	Yes	Paid users, scans, weekly patients, and public-company growth point to real usage.
Are therapeutics breaking through?	Mixed	Human trials are starting, but commercial longevity drugs are not here yet.
Are failures becoming visible?	Yes	Unity and AbbVie-Calico show weak aging-biology stories get punished.
Is regulation biting?	Yes	FDA, MRI, clinic, peptide, and device scrutiny are rising.
Are partnerships helping?	Mixed	Practical health partnerships are growing, but aging-biology partnerships are fragile.
Are public companies proving strength?	Mixed	Wearables are strong; public longevity biotech remains weak.
Are GLP-1s helping?	Yes	They increase demand for metabolic tracking, labs, coaching, and healthspan tools.
Is hype still a problem?	Yes	Some clinics and interventions still sell ahead of evidence.
Are investors more interested?	Mixed	Top-tier interest is high, but capital is extremely concentrated.
Is customer demand rising?	Yes	The best signals are repeat behaviors, not just attention.

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.