Function Health vs Superpower: Both Tested, Same Body

Quick Verdict

The price argument is over. Function Health is $365 a year, Superpower is $349, and both now include two blood draws. Choose on what happens after your results land, not on cost.

Choose Function Health if you want a written clinician review of every result, heavy metals in the base panel, a urinalysis alongside the blood work, and access to the Galleri multi-cancer test and full-body MRI as add-ons. It is the better choice if you want a human reading your numbers and a longer track record behind the platform.

Choose Superpower if you want to act on your results without leaving the membership. Member-priced supplements and prescription access sit inside the $349, the dashboard is the cleaner of the two, and the AI chat is the more mature. It is the better choice if the thing that usually stops you is not knowing what to do next.

Know before you buy either: Function Health is suing Superpower over how it counts biomarkers. Neither company's headline number means what you probably think it means. I cover that below because it changes how you read both marketing pages.

Disclaimer: Links may contain affiliate links, which means we may get paid a commission at no additional cost to you if you purchase through this page. Read our full disclosure here.

Pricing and What You Get

Here is the fastest way to compare the two at a glance. Both companies have moved their prices in the last year, so verify at checkout. As a reader of Heal Nourish Grow, you'll get an additional $25 off at Function Health.

What the pricing change means in practice. For most of the time I have been writing about these two, the comparison had an easy shape: Superpower was the affordable first panel and Function was the fuller product for people who wanted twice-yearly clinician review. That shape is gone. Superpower's move to $349 with a second draw included put it directly alongside Function rather than underneath it and the sixteen dollars between them shouldn't decide anything for anyone.

What is left is a feature choice and Function Health vs Superpower splits cleanly on it. Function bundles more diagnostics into the base price: heavy metals, a urinalysis and a written clinician narrative. Superpower bundles more action: member pricing on supplements and prescription access inside the same membership, so the plan and the means to follow it live in one place. Neither is better in the abstract. They solve different halves of the same problem.

The Lawsuit Between Them, and Why It Matters to You

Most comparisons of these two platforms skip this and it is the single most useful thing to understand before you read either company's marketing.

On January 26, 2026, Function Health filed a false advertising and unfair competition complaint against Superpower Health in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, under the federal Lanham Act and California law. The centerpiece is Superpower's marketing of “100+ lab tests” and “100+ biomarkers.” Function alleges a membership at that time delivered roughly 55 direct laboratory measurements, with the rest of the headline figure coming from calculated ratios and indices derived from those measurements rather than additional tests. The case is pending. Both companies are operating normally and nothing has been decided.

Here is the arithmetic on both sides, because once you see it you will read both homepages differently.

• Superpower's 150+ is an initial draw of about 90 biomarkers plus a built-in retest of about 60 of those same markers. Its own footnote states the figure includes direct laboratory measurements and calculated health metrics together.
• Function's 160+ is an annual draw of about 100 biomarkers plus a mid-year retest of about 60 of those same markers, published as one combined number.

Both companies count retested markers twice. The company doing the suing structures its headline number the same way as the company being sued. The gap between 150 and 160 is not the gap between the products.

My practical takeaway, which holds whatever the court decides: the honest comparison is roughly 90 distinct markers against roughly 100, tested twice each, sixteen dollars apart. Ignore the headline counts on both sites and go read the actual panel list before you buy. If a specific marker matters to you, that list is the only number worth checking and what markers the test has changed over time.

Which Tests Are the Same vs Different?

Both platforms cover the core categories you would expect: cardiovascular markers including ApoB, 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

• Heavy metals in the standard membership panel. Superpower offers heavy metals as an optional add-on. For anyone concerned about environmental exposure, this is a meaningful difference and it is one of the clearest arguments for Function at the current prices.
• A urine sample alongside the blood work, enabling urinalysis markers that a blood-only draw cannot capture. Superpower's included panels are blood only.
• Imaging. Through its acquisition of Ezra, Function sells full-body MRI and CT scans to members at member pricing. Superpower has no imaging equivalent.

What Superpower does that Function does not

• Prescription access inside the membership. When clinically appropriate, Superpower's marketplace covers prescriptions alongside supplements at member pricing. Function will tell you what to change and then point you elsewhere to do it.
• Derived ratios and calculated health scores. Superpower generates markers like Ferritin-to-Albumin Ratio, Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte Ratio and Monocyte-to-Lymphocyte Ratio alongside raw values. These can surface patterns that raw numbers alone do not flag, and they are also part of what the lawsuit is about, so treat them as a reading aid rather than as extra tests.
• Health category grades. Superpower scores you across 14 health categories with letter grades and identifies your top winners and improvement areas at a glance.
• Gut microbiome testing as an add-on, which Function does not currently offer but my dashboard says coming soon.

Both platforms revise their panels regularly. Verify the current biomarker list on each site before purchasing, especially if one specific marker is the reason you are buying.

Biological Age: Three Different Answers

This is where the comparison gets interesting, and where paying for three platforms in one year turned out to be worth it.

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. Hundred Health, tested a month after Function, put it at 38.0. Two of the three landed within 0.7 years of each other. The third was nearly eight years off, on the same body, over one winter.

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

The research says this is exactly what you should expect. A 2025 cross-tissue analysis in Aging Cell ran common epigenetic aging clocks across five tissue types from the same 83 people and found within-person differences averaging close to 30 years for some clocks, depending on which sample the estimate was built from. If established research clocks can disagree that dramatically inside one person, two commercial platforms disagreeing by eight years is unremarkable.

What this means practically: do not anchor to the absolute number from either platform, and never compare the number across platforms. The value is in tracking change over time within one service. 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, and Hundred's 38.0 landed within a year of it. I dig into all three numbers and how much weight any of them deserve in my biological age test guide.

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 and Environmental Toxins among others. The depth of information is substantial. You can spend a long time reading explanations, reference ranges and educational content for each marker. That is a strength if you want to understand your data and a friction point if you 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 Superpower's most distinctive dashboard feature. The Ferritin-to-Albumin Ratio, LMR and MLR add a layer of pattern recognition beyond what raw values show. For someone reading their own results without a medical background, Superpower's clean layout and plain-language framing makes that easier. Just hold in mind, after the section above, that these are calculations rather than additional tests.

Clinician Notes and Interpretation

Function Health's clinician notes are its strongest feature and the clearest reason to pay the extra sixteen dollars. 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 goes well beyond what a dashboard alone delivers.

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 in a direct-to-consumer platform.

Superpower's interpretation comes through care team messaging and AI chat rather than written clinician notes. The guidance is personalized and actionable, and you can message a human on demand, which Function does not offer in the same form. But it reads differently from a physician-written narrative, and if what you want is somebody qualified telling you what your numbers mean as a whole, Function is the one that does that.

AI Features Compared

Function Health AI: newer, and already substantive

Function launched Private AI Chat and Protocols in beta alongside its price drop to $365. What the chat does well is pull your specific data into its responses. When I mentioned my ApoE 3/4 genotype, it came back with a clear 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 goes beyond what most consumer health tools offer.

The Protocols feature reviews your biomarkers, goals, health profile and preferences, then generates a structured whole-body plan for nutrition, fitness, supplements, sleep and stress. Function appropriately notes the AI is not medical advice and recommends consulting your doctor.

Superpower AI: more mature and immediately actionable

Superpower's AI has been live longer and feels more polished. It answers questions about your specific results in plain language, and the protocol builder lets you review recommended actions, check off the ones you want to adopt, and build a plan that reflects your 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.” Having navigated complex health situations myself, I value that kind of practical scaffolding.

What Each Platform Found That Mattered

Superpower's most significant finding: iron saturation at 49%

Superpower flagged my iron saturation above the threshold clinicians use to screen for hereditary hemochromatosis, and generated a doctor recommendation card telling me exactly what to ask my physician for. My regular physical had never run that marker. It is the single best argument for a broad panel, and I walk through the full numbers, the reassuring ferritin context and what I did about it in my Superpower Health review.

Function Health's most significant finding: 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 a mild rise in triglycerides as something to track at the next draw.

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 see the full picture rather than treating each marker in isolation. Neither of those is a finding Superpower surfaced and the reason is structural rather than accidental: a written clinician narrative is built to connect markers, and a dashboard is built to display them.

What neither platform can do for you

Worth saying, because both companies market hard in the other direction. A broad panel produces findings you then have to chase, and not all of them are worth chasing. A 2026 cross-sectional analysis in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine classified 191 unique tests across 76 direct-to-consumer wellness panels and found 58 percent were low-value or actively cascade-driving, with the largest panel expected to generate 9.8 false positives per healthy consumer. My iron result turned out to be worth investigating. Some flags will not be, and each one costs you time, money or worry. Both platforms are better than that category baseline because both use accredited labs and both put some form of interpretation on top. Neither removes the problem.

If you are trying to make sense of which markers matter most on either panel, grab my blood test biomarker cheatsheet. It is the plain-language reference I wish I had before my first comprehensive draw.

Testing Experience and Logistics

Function Health: more vials, more structure

Function's baseline required two fasting lab visits close together, plus a urine sample. In my experience that 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 real trend data as a result. The midyear follow-up draw is smaller and faster.

One change worth flagging if you read this comparison earlier in the year: Function now offers a concierge at-home draw, added in 2026 through its acquisition of the mobile phlebotomy company Getlabs. I previously wrote that at-home collection was a Superpower advantage. That is no longer true and both platforms now offer it.

Superpower: lighter lift per visit

Superpower is simpler per draw. One blood draw at any of 2,000+ Quest locations, scheduled directly from the dashboard, with results in 10 days or less. Mine landed in four. At-home phlebotomy is available for an additional fee that Superpower does not publish up front.

The one logistics difference that could decide this for you is coverage. Function operates in all 50 states, with New York and New Jersey priced separately. Superpower operates in 41 states plus Washington DC and is not yet available in Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota or Wyoming. If you live in one of those nine, this comparison is already settled.

Which One Should You Choose?

Choose Function Health if you:

• Want a written clinician summary that connects your markers in context rather than flagging them one by one
• Want heavy metals and a urinalysis inside the base membership instead of as add-ons
• Want the Galleri multi-cancer early detection test or a full-body MRI available at member pricing
• Have a complex health history where longitudinal data matters, including cancer history, cardiovascular risk factors or genetic variants like ApoE4
• Live in one of the nine states Superpower does not yet serve
• Prefer the functional medicine philosophy behind the platform, co-founded by Dr. Mark Hyman

Choose Superpower if you:

• Want to act on your results without leaving the membership, with member-priced supplements and prescription access in the same place as your data
• Value a clean, intuitive dashboard with letter grades and derived health scores over a deeper reading experience
• Want a mature AI chat plus a care team you can message on demand rather than a written report
• Want gut microbiome testing available as an add-on
• Prefer to add specialty tests on demand rather than pay for a larger bundle up front

If I had to compress it to one line: Function is better at telling you what your results mean and ostensibly has a real clinician involved, Superpower may be better at helping you do something about them. At sixteen dollars apart, that is the whole decision.

What About Hundred Health and Empirical Health?

Now that Function and Superpower are priced within sixteen dollars of each other, the more interesting question for a lot of people is whether either is the right pick at all. Two other platforms come up constantly in this comparison and both deserve a mention.

Hundred Health, now the budget option at $199

Hundred Health launched in December 2025 and takes a different approach to wearables. All three platforms sync with Oura and Whoop, but Hundred is the only one that builds that data into your protocol rather than displaying it beside your labs.

It includes a strong standard panel across two draws, including an ANA autoimmune screen, leptin, a full electrolyte panel and lead, plus the DUTCH Complete hormone test, which is the piece neither Function nor Superpower matches. At $199 it is now the cheapest of the three rather than the premium option it was at launch, which is a meaningful change if hormone depth is what you are after. I ran a panel through it and got a biological age of 38.0, within a year of Function's number. Read my full Hundred Health review here and how my Hundred Health protocol has been going here.

Empirical Health, the one I keep getting asked about

Empirical Health comes up often enough alongside these two that it is worth naming, however, I have not tested it, so treat this as research rather than experience. It is priced around $190 for a single draw covering 100+ markers including ApoB, Lp(a) and hs-CRP, and its pitch is follow-up care: treatment, prescriptions and referrals rather than a dashboard.

The trade-off is structural. One draw instead of two means no retest built into the price, so you get a snapshot rather than a trend and trend is most of what makes any of these memberships worth renewing. If your goal is a cheap comprehensive baseline with a clinician attached, it is worth a look. If your goal is watching a borderline marker move over six months, the two-draw platforms are built for that and it is not.

How I Keep This Comparison Current

I use both memberships myself and every screenshot here comes from my own dashboards. Prices and panel structures in this category move faster than almost anything else I cover, so each time I update I re-check both companies' own published pages rather than carrying figures forward from the previous version. That is how the September 1 price change, Function's at-home draw and the shift to two included draws on both platforms made it into this update. Where a figure sits behind a member dashboard and neither company publishes it, I say so instead of guessing.

This comparison reflects my personal experience with both platforms and is for general information only. It is not medical advice. Neither service is a substitute for your primary care provider, and any result outside the normal range should be discussed with a qualified clinician.