← Read the complete Function Health review

The best Function Health alternatives in 2026

Five credible replacements, compared on biomarker count, price, testing cadence, and what they do better.

By Elo. Last updated:

Empirical Health is now the clearest lower-cost substitute. WHOOP Advanced Labs is the closest cadence match, while Superpower remains the most similar app-first alternative.

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.

Swipe to compare providers →

FeatureFunction Health
Annual Membership
Empirical Health
Comprehensive Health Panel
WHOOP Advanced Labs
Advanced Labs (Annual)
Superpower
Basic
InsideTracker
Ultimate
Vitals Vault
Max
Price$365$190$349$349$499$399
Number of Biomarkers11410065594858
Best forBroad recurring screeninglower-cost alternativefor repeat testingapp-first alternativeaction planone-time option
Features
iOS app
Web app
Android app
Wearable integration
Testing Frequency2×/yearOn demand2×/year2×/yearOn demandOne time
Prescriptions
Access to clinicians
Testing frequency details
  • Function Health: Twice per year (Annual: 100+ tests, Follow-up: 60+ tests)
  • Empirical Health: On-demand (pay per test)
  • WHOOP Advanced Labs: Twice per year (75 biomarkers per draw)
  • Superpower: Twice per year (Baseline + re-test)
  • InsideTracker: On-demand (pay per test, discounted with membership)
  • Vitals Vault: One-time purchase

How to read the table: ✓ means the feature is included; — means it is not included in the named package. “Access to clinicians” means members can message or consult a clinician or care team; a clinician reviewing a report alone does not count.

Primary sources checked September 2026: Function Health, Empirical Health, WHOOP Advanced Labs, Superpower, InsideTracker, Vitals Vault. Each column uses the representative package named in its header.

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

Function Health vs Empirical Health

Best lower-cost alternative

A cheaper, physician-led alternative with treatment options.

Choose it if:
You want physician involvement and prescriptions when appropriate at roughly half Function's price.
Tradeoff:
Less exhaustive testing and less emphasis on a large consumer dashboard.

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.

Function Health vs WHOOP Advanced Labs

Best for repeat testing

The closest cadence match, especially for existing WHOOP members.

Choose it if:
You use WHOOP and want two annual draws plus lab results beside recovery and sleep data.
Tradeoff:
A smaller core panel; the wearable-data context is only available to WHOOP members.

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.

Function Health vs Superpower

Best app-first alternative

The most similar consumer-dashboard alternative, but no longer a deep discount.

Choose it if:
You want the closest app-first experience, 24/7 care-team messaging, and access to prescriptions.
Tradeoff:
Its normalized panel is still narrower than Function's, and it does not have an Android app.

Both Function Health and Superpower provide broad preventive blood testing, consumer-friendly dashboards, and personalized explanations. Superpower costs $349 per year for 59 distinct biomarkers across a baseline plus re-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 closer app-first substitute; Function Health is better for broader baseline coverage.

Function Health vs InsideTracker

Best action plan

More established recommendations for performance and behavior change.

Choose it if:
You prioritize performance-focused food, supplement, exercise, and lifestyle recommendations.
Tradeoff:
It costs more and covers fewer biomarkers than Function.

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.

Function Health vs Vitals Vault

Best one-time option

Useful when you want a broad panel without another annual membership.

Choose it if:
You want to pay once, choose among several panel sizes, and avoid a subscription.
Tradeoff:
No native mobile app or included mid-year retest.

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.

How we compare alternatives

We normalize each provider's published panel into distinct biomarkers, then compare marker count, price, iOS, web and Android access, wearable integrations, testing frequency, prescriptions, and direct clinician access. Each column uses a representative package selected for comparability, which is not necessarily the provider's cheapest option. 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.