Graded review
Function Health Review: Are 100+ Biomarkers Worth $499/yr?
Function Health's 100+ lab membership surfaces real outcome-validated markers — but roughly half are basic labs, and it tests without treating. Honest review.
Evidence scorecard
Top of the scorecard
Grade A
CoreAge Rx
Doctor-reviewed longevity peptides and NAD+ with one published per-protocol price and built-in human support.
$93–$99/mo (12-mo plan)
Check availability- Pricing
- Flat monthly, no membership
- Pharmacy
- 503A compounding pharmacy
- Labs
- No labs required
- Consult
- Clinician review included
- Support
- 1:1 nurse + dietitian
Advertising disclosure — we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Affiliate partners are listed first on the scorecard.
Also on the scorecard
Grade C
Try Ageless
Every advertised longevity price is an intro-code rate, and the site says outright the real figure arrives after review.
$176–$249/mo list
Visit Try AgelessEvery advertised longevity price is a limited-time intro-code rate: the real list prices are $249 (NAD+ injection) and $176 (sermorelin injection), not the $199 and $126 shown. Compounded and not FDA-approved. Graded on the same rubric as every other provider on our scorecard.
The one-sentence version
Function Health is a genuinely useful product wrapped in a misleading headline. The "100+ biomarkers" framing implies that more numbers means more health — they don't — but buried inside that long list are a handful of cheap, outcome-validated tests (ApoB, Lp(a), hs-CRP, HbA1c) that most standard checkups skip and that genuinely deserve your attention. The catch is that roughly half the panel is ordinary bloodwork you could get cheaper elsewhere, a chunk of the rest is context or vanity, and the model is structurally test-but-don't-treat: it hands you data and flags, not a clinician fixing your problems. Whether ~$499/year is worth it depends entirely on whether the actionable core justifies the price for you. For where lab-membership testing sits in the field, see our pillar on longevity medicine: what's proven vs hyped and our breakdown of what longevity biomarker panels actually test.
What you actually get for ~$499/year
Function Health is a direct-to-consumer (DTC) lab membership. For an annual fee — positioned around $499, though DTC lab pricing shifts, so treat that as current market info — you get a large baseline blood panel (the "100+ biomarkers" headline), a follow-up retest partway through the year, a clean dashboard that flags results outside "optimal" ranges, and physician-ordered/reviewed labs so a clinician signs off on ordering and on results requiring it. What you generally do not get is ongoing treatment: Function surfaces and tracks numbers; it is not a longevity clinic prescribing and managing therapy. That distinction — testing versus treating — is the single most important thing to understand before paying, and it's the structural catch of the entire DTC lab band, which we map in longevity clinics vs lab memberships.
At a glance
| Function Health membership | |
|---|---|
| What it is | DTC lab membership; baseline panel + retest, physician-reviewed |
| Price | ~$499/yr (current market info) |
| Genuinely useful core | ApoB, Lp(a) once, hs-CRP, HbA1c (outcome-validated) |
| Padding | ~half basic labs; correlated long tail; IGF-1, homocysteine |
| Treats your results? | No — surfaces and flags; you/your clinician must act |
The good: it surfaces the markers a basic checkup skips
Here's the honest case for Function. A standard annual physical often orders a basic lipid panel, a metabolic panel, and a CBC — and stops. Function routinely includes several markers with strong hard-outcome evidence that your regular checkup probably doesn't, and surfacing them is real value:
- ApoB. The single most useful upgrade over a basic lipid panel. Every atherogenic particle — LDL, VLDL, Lp(a), remnants — carries exactly one ApoB, so it counts the number of particles that can lodge in an artery wall, where standard LDL cholesterol measures only the cargo. When the two disagree (common in metabolic syndrome and diabetes), the particle count is the better predictor of cardiovascular events1, a conclusion echoed by LDL-particle-number data from the Framingham Offspring cohort2, and major lipid guidelines now treat ApoB as a measurement target3.
- Lp(a). A genetically set, mostly lifelong-stable particle that independently and causally raises heart-attack and stroke risk — Mendelian-randomization data make the causal case cleanly4. You measure it once; a high result reshapes how aggressively everything else gets managed. A panel that includes it is doing something genuinely useful (one that re-bills you for it every cycle is padding).
- hs-CRP. A marker of low-grade systemic inflammation that predicted cardiovascular events at least as well as LDL cholesterol in a large prospective study5 and was used to guide statin treatment with a hard-outcome benefit in the randomized JUPITER trial6. (Caveat: it's non-specific — a cold or injury spikes it — so a single high reading means "recheck when well.")
- HbA1c. Average blood sugar over ~3 months, and not just a diabetes test: it predicted all-cause and cardiovascular mortality continuously in a population study, with risk rising across the range including below the diabetes threshold7.
If Function's panel gets you these four numbers — plus catches a treatable thyroid, ferritin, or vitamin D problem people often misattribute to "aging" — it has earned a meaningful slice of its fee. That's the legitimate core.
The catch: roughly half is basic labs, and the long tail inflates the number
Now the honest case against the framing. The "100+ biomarkers" headline does a lot of work, and most of it is marketing:
- A large share is ordinary bloodwork. The CBC, comprehensive metabolic panel, standard lipids, thyroid, electrolytes, kidney and liver markers — these are useful, but they're the same basic labs available through a primary-care order or a cheap DTC requisition. Bundling them into a "100+" count makes the panel look more exotic than it is.
- Much of the tail is correlated padding. Most of the extra markers track with the cheap Tier-1 core, so they add line items and a sense of completeness without adding much independent, actionable signal. More tubes of blood is not more health.
- Some featured markers are vanity or actively misleading as targets. Two examples worth naming:
- IGF-1 is marketed as a youth hormone, but its mortality relationship is U-shaped — both low and high IGF-1 associate with higher mortality in meta-analysis8. "Raise your IGF-1 to feel younger" is biologically naïve, and chasing it in either direction is a mistake.
- Homocysteine associates with cardiovascular risk, so it looks worth treating — but large randomized trials that lowered it with folic acid and B vitamins (HOPE-2) did not reduce cardiovascular events9. It's a passenger, not a driver; measuring it rarely changes what you should do.
Graded scorecard
- ASurfacing ApoB, Lp(a), hs-CRP, HbA1c your checkup skipsStrong evidence
Cheap, outcome-validated markers. ApoB beats LDL-C when they disagree; JUPITER used hs-CRP to guide statins; HbA1c predicts mortality continuously.
- BThe basic-labs half (CBC, metabolic, thyroid, ferritin, D)Moderate evidence
Useful and treatable when abnormal — but ordinary bloodwork available more cheaply, not 'longevity' magic.
- CThe '100+ biomarker' framing as a health upgradeWeak evidence
Much of the tail is correlated padding; IGF-1 has a U-shaped mortality curve and homocysteine lowering failed to cut events (HOPE-2). More tubes is not more health.
- DThe membership itself as a health interventionInsufficient
Tests but doesn't treat. Surfacing a flagged number is not the same as moving an outcome; fitness and grip strength — the biggest levers — aren't even on the panel.
The structural limit: it tests, it doesn't treat
This is the part that decides the grade. Function is a measurement product. It will flag that your ApoB is high or your HbA1c is creeping up — but it does not then manage you: titrate a statin, build a nutrition plan, recheck and adjust. You're handed data and "optimal range" flags, and the work of acting on them falls to you and whatever clinician you already have. For a motivated, health-literate person who will take an abnormal ApoB to their doctor and push for treatment, that's fine — even empowering. For someone hoping the membership itself improves their health, it's a category error: surfacing a number is not the same as moving an outcome, and a panel full of green-and-red flags can create a false sense that paying for the data is doing something. The two biggest longevity levers in all of epidemiology aren't even on a blood panel — cardiorespiratory fitness, among the most powerful survival predictors ever measured10, and grip strength, which outpredicted blood pressure across 17 countries in the PURE study11 — and no membership dashboard substitutes for the boring, proven work of moving them.
There's also a soft conflict to watch in the broader DTC-lab ecosystem: when "optimal" ranges are drawn tighter than clinical reference ranges, more of your results land in the amber zone — which can nudge you toward supplements or add-on testing. Function's labs being physician-reviewed mitigates the worst of this, but the incentive to make a panel feel like it found something is baked into the category, and a tighter-than-clinical "optimal" band is the mechanism. Read your flags against standard clinical thresholds, not just the dashboard's color coding.
The grade, and how we got there
Two axes again, because conflating them is the trap:
- As a way to surface outcome-validated markers your checkup skips: moderate-to-strong. ApoB, Lp(a), hs-CRP, and HbA1c are real, cheap, hard-outcome-linked tests, and getting them in front of a motivated person is genuine value.
- As a "100+ biomarker" health upgrade that improves your health: weak. Roughly half is basic labs, much of the tail is correlated padding, a few featured markers (IGF-1, homocysteine) are vanity or misleading as targets, and — decisively — it tests without treating.
That split lands the letter grade in the middle: a B for the actionable core, a C for the model most people think they're buying. If you're health-literate, have a clinician who'll act on the results, and value the convenience of getting ApoB and Lp(a) without a fight, it can be worth it. If you're hoping a subscription will make you healthier, the money does more in a standard outcome-validated panel plus actually treating the few markers that matter. We run that whole cost-benefit in are longevity clinics worth it?.
Who should and shouldn't buy it
- Reasonable buyer: a motivated, health-literate person who wants ApoB, Lp(a), hs-CRP, and HbA1c surfaced conveniently and will take abnormal results to a clinician who treats them.
- Poor fit: someone expecting the membership itself to improve their health, or who'll re-read a long list of green/amber flags as a scoreboard. For most of that budget, a targeted outcome-validated panel does the job — and if you want a biological-age number too, the open PhenoAge formula derives one from a basic blood draw for free, as we cover in free biological-age tests. (And don't confuse a comprehensive blood panel with an epigenetic-age test — that's a different product with its own limits, graded in biological age tests.)
Bottom line
Function Health's real value isn't the "100+ biomarkers" — it's the four or five cheap, outcome-validated markers (ApoB, Lp(a) once, hs-CRP, HbA1c) it surfaces that your standard checkup probably skips, plus the occasional treatable thyroid or deficiency catch. The rest is largely ordinary bloodwork dressed up by a big number, a correlated tail that adds little independent signal, and a couple of markers (IGF-1, homocysteine) that mislead as targets. Most important, it tests without treating: it flags problems it won't fix. Worth it for a motivated, health-literate buyer with a clinician who'll act on the results — a poor fit for anyone hoping a subscription is itself a health intervention. To see how it stacks up against InsideTracker, Lifeforce, and Superpower on price and panel padding, see our roundup of the best longevity blood test services — for the closest DNA-plus-blood rival specifically, our InsideTracker review, and for the one rival that bundles a clinician and prescribing, our Lifeforce review. For the most-searched head-to-head against its closest price rival, see Function Health vs Superpower. For an independently graded look at the labs and clinics selling these memberships, see our longevity clinic rankings.
Frequently asked questions
Is Function Health worth $499 a year?
It depends on who you are. For a motivated, health-literate person who wants outcome-validated markers like ApoB, Lp(a), hs-CRP and HbA1c surfaced conveniently — and who will take abnormal results to a clinician who treats them — it can be worth it. For someone hoping a subscription will itself make them healthier, it's a poorer fit: roughly half the panel is ordinary bloodwork, much of the rest is correlated padding, and the model tests without treating.
Are the '100+ biomarkers' actually useful?
A handful are genuinely useful — ApoB, Lp(a) (once), hs-CRP and HbA1c have strong hard-outcome evidence and are skipped by most basic checkups. But the headline number is mostly framing: a large share is ordinary bloodwork, much of the tail correlates with the cheap core and adds little independent signal, and a couple of featured markers (IGF-1, homocysteine) actively mislead as targets. A longer panel is not a healthier one.
Does Function Health treat your results or just test them?
It tests and flags, but it does not manage treatment. Function surfaces results against 'optimal' ranges and provides physician-reviewed labs, but it isn't a clinic that titrates a statin, builds a nutrition plan, and rechecks. Acting on an abnormal result falls to you and your own clinician. That test-but-don't-treat structure is the defining limit of the DTC lab category and the main reason a subscription isn't itself a health intervention.
What are the most useful markers Function tests?
The cheap, outcome-validated core: ApoB for cardiovascular particle risk (better than LDL-C when they disagree), Lp(a) measured once (genetically fixed, causal for heart disease), hs-CRP for inflammation (used to guide statins in JUPITER), and HbA1c for metabolic risk (predicts mortality continuously). Notably, two of the strongest longevity predictors — cardiorespiratory fitness and grip strength — aren't blood tests at all, so no panel captures them.
References
- Glavinovic T, Thanassoulis G, de Graaf J, et al. (2022). Physiological Bases for the Superiority of Apolipoprotein B Over Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Non-High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol as a Marker of Cardiovascular Risk. Journal of the American Heart Association. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36216435/
- Cromwell WC, Otvos JD, Keyes MJ, et al. (2007). LDL Particle Number and Risk of Future Cardiovascular Disease in the Framingham Offspring Study. Journal of Clinical Lipidology. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19657464/
- Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL, et al. (2020). 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. European Heart Journal. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31504418/
- Clarke R, Peden JF, Hopewell JC, et al. (2009). Genetic variants associated with Lp(a) lipoprotein level and coronary disease. New England Journal of Medicine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20032323/
- Ridker PM, Rifai N, Rose L, et al. (2002). Comparison of C-reactive protein and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in the prediction of first cardiovascular events. New England Journal of Medicine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12432042/
- Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FAH, et al. (2008). Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein (JUPITER). New England Journal of Medicine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18997196/
- Khaw KT, Wareham N, Luben R, et al. (2001). Glycated haemoglobin, diabetes, and mortality in men in Norfolk cohort of European Prospective Investigation of Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Norfolk). BMJ. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11141143/
- Burgers AM, Biermasz NR, Schoones JW, et al. (2011). Meta-analysis and dose-response metaregression: circulating insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and mortality. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21795450/
- Lonn E, Yusuf S, Arnold MJ, et al. (2006). Homocysteine lowering with folic acid and B vitamins in vascular disease (HOPE-2). New England Journal of Medicine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16531613/
- Mandsager K, Harb S, Cremer P, et al. (2018). Association of Cardiorespiratory Fitness With Long-term Mortality Among Adults Undergoing Exercise Treadmill Testing. JAMA Network Open. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30646252/
- Leong DP, Teo KK, Rangarajan S, et al. (2015). Prognostic value of grip strength: findings from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. Lancet. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25982160/
Medical disclaimer: This content is for general educational purposes only and is not medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a licensed healthcare professional before starting, stopping, or changing any treatment.
More graded reviews
Superpower Health Review: Is the $499 100-Lab Membership Worth It?
Superpower's $499/yr 100+ lab membership is slick and cheap-per-marker — but it tests without treating, and the panel leans on padding. Honest, graded review.
ReadFree Biological-Age Tests & Calculators: Do They Actually Work?
Free biological-age calculators range from validated (PhenoAge from a basic blood panel) to entertainment. An honest guide to what's worth your time.
ReadWhat Do Longevity Biomarker Panels Actually Test?
Longevity panels mix genuinely useful, outcome-validated markers (ApoB, HbA1c, hs-CRP) with vanity numbers. An honest, evidence-graded breakdown.
ReadBest Longevity Blood Test Services, Compared (2026)
Function, InsideTracker, Lifeforce, Superpower — graded honestly. The four cheap outcome-validated markers matter; the '100+ biomarker' count mostly doesn't.
ReadFunction Health vs Superpower: Which Lab Membership Wins?
Function Health vs Superpower, graded honestly: nearly identical 100+ lab memberships that both test without treating. The tiebreaker isn't the marker count.
ReadTruDiagnostic TruAge Review: Is the $229 Epigenetic Clock Worth It?
TruDiagnostic's TruAge uses the well-validated DunedinPACE clock — but no test proves the score predicts YOUR outcomes. An honest, evidence-graded review.
Read