Alternatives guide
The best Function Health alternatives in 2026
Five credible replacements, compared on biomarker count, price, testing cadence, and what they do better.
Last updated:
Our take
Superpower is the clearest lower-cost substitute. WHOOP Advanced Labs is the closest match on twice-yearly testing, while Empirical Health is the better choice when access to a physician matters more than raw marker count.
Function Health alternatives at a glance
Function Health's Annual Membership costs $365 and contains 114 distinct biomarkers in our normalized dataset. The table compares that with each alternative's default panel.
| Alternative | Best for | Price | Markers | Testing cadence | Doctor review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Superpower | lower-cost alternative | $199 | 59 | Once per year | No |
| WHOOP Advanced Labs | for repeat testing | $349 | 65 | Twice per year (75 biomarkers per draw) | Yes |
| Empirical Health | for physician guidance | $190 | 100 | On-demand (pay per test) | Yes |
| InsideTracker | action plan | $499 | 48 | On-demand (pay per test, discounted with membership) | No |
| Vitals Vault | one-time option | $399 | 58 | One-time purchase | No |
Marker counts are normalized from published panels, so they can differ from company marketing totals. Providers sometimes bundle or split the same lab result differently.
Function Health compared with each alternative
1. Best lower-cost alternative
Function Health vs Superpower
Both Function Health and Superpower provide broad preventive blood testing, consumer-friendly dashboards, and personalized explanations. Superpower costs $199 per year for 59 distinct biomarkers in one annual test, whereas Function Health costs $365 per year for 114 distinct biomarkers and includes an initial test plus a narrower mid-year retest. Superpower is the better lower-cost option; Function Health is better for tracking changes during the year.
What they have in common: Both cover cardiovascular, metabolic, hormone, thyroid, liver, kidney, inflammation, and nutritional markers. Both also organize results in consumer-facing web and iPhone apps.
Largest differences: A much lower annual price and a polished app while retaining broad preventive coverage. One included draw rather than Function's initial test plus mid-year follow-up.
Doctor access: Neither membership is primarily physician-led, although Superpower offers prescription services through its marketplace when appropriate. Function does not include ongoing medical care or prescribing.
Bottom line: Choose Superpower if price matters most and one annual test is enough. Choose Function if the included follow-up draw is worth the higher annual price.
2. Best for repeat testing
Function Health vs WHOOP Advanced Labs
Both Function Health and WHOOP Advanced Labs include two blood draws per year, can be purchased without a wearable membership, and present results in a consumer health app. WHOOP Advanced Labs costs $349 per year for 65 biomarkers per draw, whereas Function Health costs $365 per year for 114 distinct biomarkers across a broader initial panel and a narrower follow-up. WHOOP Advanced Labs is better for WHOOP members who want labs beside wearable data; Function Health is better for broader lab-first screening.
What they have in common: Both include repeat testing, clinician-reviewed results, and broad coverage across cardiovascular, metabolic, hormone, thyroid, liver, kidney, and nutritional health.
Largest differences: Two draws per year, clinician review, and lab results beside recovery and sleep data. A smaller core panel; the wearable-data context is only available to WHOOP members.
Doctor access: WHOOP says clinicians review results, while Function provides clinician-written summaries rather than direct, ongoing physician care. Neither service is designed around treatment or prescriptions.
Bottom line: Choose WHOOP Advanced Labs if you use WHOOP and want blood results interpreted beside sleep, strain, and recovery data; a wearable membership is no longer required to purchase the labs. Choose Function for broader lab-first testing.
3. Best for physician guidance
Function Health vs Empirical Health
Both Function Health and Empirical Health offer preventive blood testing with digital results and personalized health guidance. Empirical Health costs $190 for 100 distinct biomarkers and physician review, whereas Function Health costs $365 per year for 114 distinct biomarkers with a mid-year retest. Empirical Health is better for medical guidance and treatment; Function Health is better for broader screening.
What they have in common: Both cover the major cardiovascular, metabolic, hormone, thyroid, liver, kidney, blood, and nutritional categories and let members follow results digitally over time.
Largest differences: Doctor review and the ability to prescribe when appropriate, at roughly half Function's price. Less exhaustive testing and less emphasis on a large consumer dashboard.
Doctor access: Empirical Health includes physician involvement and can prescribe when clinically appropriate. Function explains results and flags issues but is not a substitute for an ongoing doctor-patient relationship.
Bottom line: Choose Empirical Health if access to a physician and a path to treatment matter more than panel size. Choose Function if you primarily want the broadest recurring screening panel.
4. Best action plan
Function Health vs InsideTracker
Both Function Health and InsideTracker turn blood-test results into personalized health and lifestyle recommendations. InsideTracker costs $499 for 48 distinct biomarkers in its default Ultimate panel, whereas Function Health costs $365 per year for 114 distinct biomarkers and includes a mid-year retest. InsideTracker is better for performance-focused action plans; Function Health provides broader testing for less money.
What they have in common: Both use consumer dashboards to explain results, track biomarkers over time, and suggest changes involving food, exercise, supplements, and other health behaviors.
Largest differences: Personalized food, supplement, exercise, and lifestyle recommendations. It costs more and covers fewer biomarkers than Function.
Doctor access: Neither service includes an ongoing physician relationship or prescriptions as part of the standard testing product. Results that require diagnosis or treatment still need to be taken to a clinician.
Bottom line: Choose InsideTracker if the recommendation engine is more important than panel breadth. Choose Function if you want more biomarkers, repeat testing, and a lower annual price.
5. Best one-time option
Function Health vs Vitals Vault
Both Function Health and Vitals Vault provide broad, direct-to-consumer blood testing through a digital results dashboard. Vitals Vault's default Max panel is a one-time $399 purchase covering 58 distinct biomarkers, whereas Function Health costs $365 per year for 114 distinct biomarkers and includes a mid-year retest. Vitals Vault is better for avoiding a subscription; Function Health is better for repeat testing and a more polished app experience.
What they have in common: Both cover major preventive-health categories and allow customers to purchase testing without first getting a referral from their regular doctor.
Largest differences: One-time pricing with several panel sizes and no subscription commitment. No native mobile app or included mid-year retest.
Doctor access: Neither product includes ongoing physician care or prescriptions. Both are testing and interpretation services, so abnormal results may still require follow-up with your own clinician.
Bottom line: Choose Vitals Vault if you want to pay once and select from several panel sizes. Choose Function if you want an included retest, a native mobile app, and easier longitudinal tracking.
How we compare alternatives
We normalize each provider's published panel into distinct biomarkers, then compare marker count, price, testing cadence, clinician review, app and web access, and prescriptions. Normalization prevents obvious duplicate spellings from inflating a panel, but company totals may still differ because providers bundle and report results differently.
The labels above are editorial recommendations, not a composite medical score. Marker count shows breadth, not whether the panels contain the same tests or whether those tests are appropriate for you. More testing is not automatically better, and a clinician should help decide which tests are relevant.