Function Health vs Superpower: Which Lab Membership Is Best in 2026?

I have a biological age of 37.3 according to Function Health. Superpower puts it at 45.2. Same person, same general timeframe, two very different answers. When it comes to which is better, Function Health vs Superpower, it really comes down to frequency and what features you appreciate most.

That discrepancy tells you something important about how these two platforms work, and it is the most honest starting point for this comparison. Both Function Health and Superpower promise a deeper look at your health than any annual physical delivers. I have used both. The differences are real, meaningful, and worth understanding before you spend money on either.

I came to this category with more personal motivation than most reviewers. After surviving surgery at the Mayo Clinic where 16 tumors were removed from my abdomen, I transformed my health through evidence-based nutrition and lifestyle change. Proactive testing is not an abstract concept for me. It is how I stay ahead of what my body is doing, and why I test regularly, wear multiple health devices simultaneously, and take these platforms seriously. I have also done the Galleri multi-cancer early detection test through Function Health given my family cancer history, which adds another layer to this comparison that most reviews skip entirely.

You can read my complete experience with each platform in these standalone reviews:

• My Function Health review: full walkthrough of the draws, dashboard, clinician notes, and add-ons
• My Superpower Health review: full breakdown of the panel, AI chat, and protocol experience

This article focuses specifically on where they differ and which one is right for you.

Pricing and What You Get

Here is the fastest way to compare the two platforms at a glance. Pricing can change, so always verify at checkout.

What the pricing difference means in practice: Superpower's $199 base tier makes it genuinely accessible as a starting point. But if you add a second draw, heavy metals testing, or other specialty panels that are included in Function's membership, the cost difference narrows quickly. Function's $365 includes two complete draws. If you need two draws through Superpower, you are already approaching Function's price before add-ons.

Which Tests Are the Same vs Different?

Both platforms cover the core categories you would expect: cardiovascular markers including ApoB (both platforms), Lipoprotein(a) (Function base; Superpower advanced tier only), metabolic health (fasting insulin, glucose, HbA1c), hormones, thyroid, liver, kidney, inflammation, and nutrients. The meaningful differences come down to how they package advanced markers and what is included versus optional.

What Function Health includes that Superpower treats as optional:

• Lead and mercury in the standard membership. Superpower offers heavy metals as an optional add-on. For anyone concerned about environmental toxin exposure, this is a meaningful difference.
• Twice-yearly draws at the base price. Function's model is built around biannual testing; trend data is core to the product, not an upgrade.
• Urine sample at both draws, enabling urinalysis markers that a blood-only draw cannot capture.

What Superpower does that Function does not:

• Derived ratios and calculated health scores. Superpower generates markers like Ferritin-to-Albumin Ratio, Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte Ratio (LMR), and Monocyte-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (MLR) alongside raw values. These calculated markers can surface patterns that raw numbers alone do not flag.
• Health category grades (A through F). Superpower scores you across 14 health categories and identifies your top health winners and improvement areas at a glance.
• A mature AI chat that pulls from your specific results and gives personalized answers in plain language. Function's AI is newer and still in beta.

Note: Both platforms update their panels over time. Always verify the current biomarker list on each platform before purchasing, especially if a specific marker matters to you.

Biological Age: Two Very Different Answers

This is where the comparison gets genuinely interesting. Both platforms calculate a biological age from your results. Mine came back very differently on each one.

Function Health calculated my biological age at 37.3, which is 15.5 years younger than my calendar age. Superpower put it at 45.2. The same person, with the same underlying health data, produced nearly an 8-year gap between two platforms.

Why the difference? Each platform uses a different algorithm, different input markers, and different reference populations. Function's biological age is calculated from a composite of eight specific blood markers including white blood cell count, ALP, glucose, creatinine, MCV, RDW, albumin, and lymphocytes. Superpower's calculation incorporates different markers and weighting. Neither is definitively correct. They are two different models of the same concept.

What this means practically: do not over-anchor to the absolute number from either platform. The value is in tracking change over time within the same platform, not comparing the number between platforms. That said, Function's 37.3 did align with what my clinician notes described as strong glycemic control, solid metabolic markers, and resilient organ function despite HRT and intense physical training.

The Dashboard Experience

Function Health: organized by category, built for depth

Function's dashboard organizes everything by health category, each with a color-coded status bar showing how many markers are optimal, out of range, or pending. Categories include Autoimmunity, Biological Age, Blood, Brain Health, Cancer Detection, Daily Metrics, Electrolytes, Environmental Toxins, and more. The depth of information is substantial. You can spend a long time reading through explanations, reference ranges, and educational content for each marker. That is a strength for people who want to understand their data and a potential friction point for people who want quick answers.

Superpower: scores and grades built for clarity

Superpower leads with a body map showing which health categories are winning and which need attention, alongside your overall Superpower Score and biological age. It grades you across 14 categories with letter grades, making it immediately clear where to focus. My results showed 4 health winners (Inflammation, Liver Health, Energy, and Immune System) and 0 improvement areas.

The derived ratios are one of Superpower's most distinctive features. The Ferritin-to-Albumin Ratio, LMR, and MLR are calculated markers that add a layer of pattern recognition beyond what raw values show. For someone who wants to understand their results without a medical background, Superpower's clean layout and plain-language framing makes that significantly easier.

Clinician Notes and Interpretation

Function Health's clinician notes are one of its strongest features. After your results come in, a clinician writes a narrative summary that connects markers across categories rather than treating each one in isolation. My February 2026 notes specifically acknowledged my glycemic control (glucose 86, HbA1c 5.2%, insulin 2.7) as a counterbalance to some cardiovascular markers, noted the context of HRT and intense physical training on my liver and immune markers, and flagged a mild rise in triglycerides to watch at the next draw. That kind of contextual interpretation is genuinely useful and goes well beyond what a dashboard alone can deliver.

Function also offers a proactive physician call when something looks unusual. When a couple of my values came back unexpected, I received a follow-up call from a Function Health physician. That kind of outreach is rare and valuable in a direct-to-consumer platform.

Superpower's interpretation comes through longevity advisors and AI chat rather than written clinician notes. The guidance is personalized and actionable, but it reads differently from a physician-written narrative summary.

AI Features Compared

Function Health AI: beta, but already impressive

Function's AI is labeled beta and is a newer addition to the platform. What it does well is pull your specific data into its responses. When I mentioned my ApoE 3/4 genotype in a conversation, the AI responded with a clear, personalized breakdown of what that means for Alzheimer's risk, the role of lifestyle factors in modifying that risk, and which cardiometabolic markers to monitor closely given that genetic context. That level of personalization is genuinely useful and goes beyond what most consumer health tools offer.

Function's AI can also build protocols from scratch. The “Create a Protocol: Whole body” feature reviews your biomarkers, goals, health profile, and preferences, then generates a structured whole-body plan. This is a newer feature and one worth watching as the platform matures out of beta. Function appropriately notes the AI is not medical advice and always recommends consulting your doctor.

Superpower AI: mature, plain-language, and immediately actionable

Superpower's AI has been live longer and feels more polished. It answers questions about your specific results in plain language with personalized context, and the protocol builder lets you review recommended actions, check off the ones you want to adopt, and build a plan that reflects your actual preferences rather than a generic template.

The doctor recommendation cards are particularly well done. When a result warrants follow-up, Superpower generates a card with specific language to use with your physician, which bridges the gap between “here are your numbers” and “here is what to say at your next appointment.” As someone who has navigated complex health situations, I appreciate that level of practical guidance.

What Each Platform Found That Mattered

The most significant finding from Superpower: iron saturation at 49%

Superpower flagged my serum iron at 175 mcg/dL and iron saturation at 49%, both above range. The 49% saturation crosses the 45% threshold that clinicians use to screen for hereditary hemochromatosis. The reassuring context: my ferritin was at 70 ng/mL (solidly optimal), meaning iron had not been accumulating in tissues. But the flag prompted a doctor recommendation card with specific guidance: bring my iron panel results to my physician, ask for HFE gene testing, request liver enzyme checks (ALT, AST, GGT), and frame the conversation around the hemochromatosis screening threshold and the C282Y and H63D mutation testing. This is exactly the kind of proactive finding that makes advanced lab testing worthwhile. Without it, this would have gone unnoticed until a future routine physical, if it was tested at all.

The most significant finding from Function Health: ApoE 3/4 context and cholesterol patterns

Function's clinician notes flagged persistent cholesterol elevations alongside excellent glycemic control, then connected those two facts: my diet and consistent exercise are likely counterbalancing cardiovascular risk that the cholesterol numbers alone would suggest. The clinician also noted the mild rise in triglycerides as something to track at the next draw. That longitudinal awareness, comparing this draw to prior results, is something Superpower cannot do as effectively with a single annual draw at the base tier.

The Function AI also gave me substantive context around my ApoE 3/4 genotype, connecting my cholesterol patterns, cardiovascular markers, and genetic risk in a way that helped me understand the full picture rather than treating each marker in isolation.

Testing Experience and Logistics

Function Health: structured, typically two visits at baseline

Function's model requires two fasting lab visits close together at the initial draw, plus a urine sample at the second visit. In my experience this meant about 12 vials of blood across two visits and a urine container to bring back. It is not the most streamlined process, but the biannual structure means you complete this workflow twice a year and get meaningful trend data as a result. The midyear follow-up draw is smaller and faster. Quest and LabCorp are both available, which gives you more scheduling flexibility than Superpower's Quest-only network.

Superpower: one visit, one draw, straightforward

Superpower is simpler logistically. One blood draw through Quest, scheduled directly from the dashboard. If you want a comprehensive baseline without multiple visits, Superpower is the lighter lift. At-home phlebotomy is available for an additional fee (around $120) if you prefer not to visit a lab.

Which One Should You Choose?

Choose Function Health if you:

• Want twice-yearly testing to track changes and trends over time
• Specifically want lead and mercury included in your standard membership
• Value a written clinician summary that connects your markers in context
• Want the Galleri multi-cancer early detection test or Prenuvo MRI available as add-ons
• Have a complex health history where longitudinal data matters, including cancer history, cardiovascular risk factors, or genetic variants like ApoE4
• Prefer the functional medicine philosophy behind the platform, co-founded by Dr. Mark Hyman

Choose Superpower if you:

• Want a lower entry price for a comprehensive first baseline
• Value a clean, intuitive dashboard with letter grades and derived health scores
• Want a mature AI chat that gives personalized, plain-language answers about your results
• Prefer to add specialty tests on demand rather than pay for a larger bundle upfront
• Want flexibility to add categories like environmental toxins, gut microbiome, or CGM as you go

What About Hundred Health?

A third platform worth knowing about is Hundred Health, which launched in December 2025. It takes a different approach: rather than just displaying your wearable data alongside labs, Hundred builds a unified 100-day protocol from the combination, using your Oura, Whoop, or Apple Fitness data as active inputs into the plan.

It includes a strong standard panel (160+ biomarkers across two draws, including ANA autoimmune screen, leptin, a full electrolyte panel, and lead), the DUTCH Complete hormone test as an available add-on now, and the Galleri cancer screen coming in Q1 2026. At $499/year it is priced higher than Function Health's current $365/year, though the integrated protocol approach may justify that for wearable users who want everything in one place.

I did my first Hundred draw this month and the app is currently in beta, so a full comparison will follow once I have results and a protocol in hand. If you are already wearing an Oura Ring or Whoop and want your wearable data to actually inform a health protocol, Hundred is the platform to watch. Read my full Hundred Health review here.