Alternatives guide

The best Superpower alternatives in 2026

The best Superpower substitutes for more frequent testing, physician involvement, wearable integration, or no out-of-pocket cost.

Last updated:

Our take

Function Health is the most direct upgrade if you want a second annual draw. Empirical Health is the closest price competitor with more physician involvement; Goodlabs is compelling for eligible blood donors who mainly want broad screening.

Superpower alternatives at a glance

Superpower's Basic costs $199 and contains 59 distinct biomarkers in our normalized dataset. The table compares that with each alternative's default panel.

AlternativeBest forPriceMarkersTesting cadenceDoctor review
Function Healthoverall upgrade$365114Twice per year (Annual: 100+ tests, Follow-up: 60+ tests)No
Empirical Healthphysician-led alternative$190100On-demand (pay per test)Yes
WHOOP Advanced Labsfor WHOOP users$34965Twice per year (75 biomarkers per draw)Yes
InsideTrackerrecommendations$49948On-demand (pay per test, discounted with membership)No
Goodlabsfree alternativeFree14Free with each blood donationNo

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.

Which alternative should you choose?

3. Best for WHOOP users

WHOOP Advanced Labs

Blood results interpreted alongside recovery, sleep, strain, and HRV.

What you gain:
Two annual draws and clinician review inside the WHOOP experience.
Tradeoff:
Higher testing cost; the strongest wearable-data integration still depends on using WHOOP.

5. Best free alternative

Goodlabs

Broad testing at no cost for people eligible and willing to donate blood.

What you gain:
No testing fee and a surprisingly broad preventive panel.
Tradeoff:
Eligibility, geography, and donation logistics make it an imperfect replacement.

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.