Compare · 8 min read · Last updated September 2026
5 Best Longevity Apps & Biomarker Platforms in 2026
The best longevity apps take very different approaches to preventive health. Some organize blood testing, some focus on interpreting existing lab results, while others center on wearables, biological age, nutrition or continuous lifestyle tracking.
This guide compares leading longevity and biomarker platforms available to European users by what they actually provide: blood testing, biomarker coverage, biological age, longitudinal tracking, wearables, AI-assisted insights and geographic availability.
Dozens of longevity health apps in Europe promise biomarkers, biological age, and preventive insights — but they are not interchangeable. Some order labs across the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and France; others specialise in UK at-home kits or DACH membership panels; some only score PDFs you already have. US pioneers like InsideTracker (on the market since 2009) and newer premium players like Function Health set expectations globally — yet their lab logistics rarely match how Europeans actually get blood drawn.
This page compares the main options on equal footing — not as “alternatives to” one US brand. Pick by geography, lab workflow, marker depth, doctor-reviewed guidance, wearables, mental wellbeing, and price tier. Healsens is a Dutch product with the Netherlands as our primary market; we also support lab ordering in BE, DE, and FR, plus upload from any lab worldwide.
The one-minute answer
The best longevity apps increasingly combine blood biomarkers with other health data, but they approach personalization very differently. Some focus on deciding what to test, others on clinical interpretation, personalized biomarker targets, or combining existing lab results with wearable data. Here is the short version of where each platform differs.
Healsens takes a preventive-planning approach. Its check-up plan can evolve with age, lifestyle, priorities and health history, using established preventive-health guidelines as a reference framework. Once results are available, Healsens adds doctor-reviewed Health Tips with published sources, health calculators, AI-assisted exploration, longitudinal comparison and personalized reference intervals (prRI) for supported biomarkers. It also combines blood data with wearables, symptoms, lifestyle and emotional-health tracking. Blood tests can be ordered in supported European countries, while existing results can be uploaded from any laboratory.
Aware is built more around structured blood-testing memberships and predefined comprehensive panels. Results include biomarker-level explanations and health recommendations, with follow-up testing available over time. Its testing workflow is particularly relevant in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands.
Thriva puts clinical interpretation closer to the center of the experience. In Compass, blood results are reviewed by an assigned doctor and accompanied by a plain-English report, with a 1:1 consultation after testing. Its Health Assistant can use results, doctor reports, health profile, goals and connected wearable data as context. Thriva is primarily designed around UK blood-testing and home-collection workflows.
Merios takes an upload-first approach. Users bring bloodwork obtained elsewhere, which Merios turns into longitudinal biomarker data, PhenoAge and its proprietary Merios Score. Apple Health data, including movement, sleep and stress, can add another layer of context. The trade-off is that Merios does not arrange blood testing or provide routine clinician review.
InsideTracker has one of the longest track records in consumer biomarker analysis. Its distinctive feature is its personalized Optimal Zones, which go beyond standard laboratory reference ranges and feed personalized Action Plans for nutrition, supplements, exercise and lifestyle. It also combines blood and wearable data and provides the proprietary InnerAge 2.0 biological-age estimate. Native blood-testing logistics remain primarily focused on North America.
Function Health takes a broad, clinician-supported testing approach. Its US membership includes extensive recurring laboratory testing, clinician review of results and personalized Protocols covering areas such as nutrition, fitness, supplements, sleep and stress. Its AI can use laboratory results, health history and connected-device data as context, but its testing service is currently centered on the US.
What Are Longevity Apps?
A longevity apps and biomarker platform is a health-tracking tool designed to help users monitor factors associated with long-term health and healthspan.
Healthspan is the portion of life spent in relatively good health. It differs from lifespan, which simply describes how long a person lives. Longevity platforms are therefore better understood as tools for monitoring and supporting long-term health rather than predicting how long someone will live.
Depending on the platform, this may include:
- Blood biomarkers — metabolic markers, blood lipids, hormones, vitamins, inflammatory markers and other laboratory measurements
- Biomarker reference and target ranges — including laboratory reference ranges and, on some platforms, narrower health-oriented or personalized ranges
- Blood test result analysis
- Suggestions for improving and optimizing health
- Biological age, stress load and other health calculators that help assess individual health risks
- Stress levels, mood and recovery
- Medication, supplement and lifestyle tracking
- Daily health monitoring, including:
- sleep duration and regularity
- resting heart rate and heart rate variability (HRV)
- daily physical activity and exercise
- daily movement and exercise
- body composition
Based on these measurements, a longevity app may provide health scores, show changes and trends over time, offer recommendations, estimate biological age and, in more advanced platforms, calculate the risk of developing certain chronic diseases. The best longevity apps combine several of these functions rather than relying on a single measurement or score.
It is also important to distinguish longevity platforms from apps that show correlations between individual factors. The retrospective observations can be useful for self-tracking, but correlation does not establish that one factor caused the other. Apparent relationships may be coincidental, influenced by other variables, or change over time. For this reason, in this comparison we do not consider simple correlation tracking on its own sufficient to classify an app as a longevity platform.
Longevity Apps vs Fitness Trackers
A fitness tracker typically focuses on physical activity, exercise, sleep and recovery. Longevity platforms may use data from fitness trackers for continuous monitoring, but wearable data is usually one part of a broader health picture rather than the entire basis of the platform.
The distinction is not always clear. WHOOP and Oura began primarily as wearable platforms but now include features related to physiological or cardiovascular age, healthspan and aging. WHOOP, for example, calculates WHOOP Age and Pace of Aging from sleep, activity, fitness and body-composition metrics, while Oura estimates Cardiovascular Age using signals derived from its wearable data.
These estimates should not be confused with a clinical assessment of overall health or disease risk. Wearables can measure some physiological signals continuously and are increasingly being studied for health and disease-risk assessment, but their accuracy and clinical usefulness vary substantially by metric and condition. Laboratory biomarkers have a longer-established role in assessing many aspects of metabolic, cardiovascular, hormonal and inflammatory health, although blood tests also provide only part of the overall picture.
A fitness tracker can therefore be an important part of a longevity-tracking system without necessarily being a complete longevity and biomarker platform on its own.
Longevity apps themselves also differ substantially. For this comparison, we use the term longevity platform for products that bring together multiple dimensions of long-term health — such as biomarkers, longitudinal trends, biological-age or health models, lifestyle data and actionable health guidance. An app that only identifies retrospective correlations between individual tracked variables would not meet this definition on that feature alone.
How We Chose the Best Longevity Apps
The best longevity apps should do more than collect health data. If the goal is to support long-term health, the more important question is what the app does with that data: what it suggests you monitor, how it evaluates your results, how transparent its calculations are, and whether it helps turn those results into practical next steps.
For this comparison, we evaluated longevity apps using seven criteria:
1. What the app tells you to track
More data does not necessarily mean better health tracking. We looked at how each app decides which biomarkers, screenings and other health measurements are relevant.
Does everyone receive essentially the same panel, or can the plan change with age, sex, health history and other relevant factors? Does it focus only on blood biomarkers, or does it also incorporate other established preventive health checks where appropriate?
We also considered whether the approach evolves as recommendations and available evidence change.
2. Biomarker targets and personalized ranges
A laboratory reference range answers an important question: whether a result falls within the reference interval used by that laboratory. But some longevity apps add another layer by providing narrower health-oriented targets or personalized ranges.
We looked at how these targets are created, which personal characteristics are considered, whether they change over time, and whether the company explains the evidence behind them.
We also distinguish between a target range — where a biomarker might ideally be — and a personalized reference interval based on a person’s own longitudinal history. These are different concepts and should not be presented as interchangeable.
3. Blood test result analysis
A list of numbers is not an interpretation. We looked at how well each app explains what individual results mean, whether previous results are considered, whether biomarkers are interpreted in context, and whether users can understand why a particular result has been highlighted.
4. Recommendations and health optimization
The next question is what happens after the results arrive.
We evaluated whether the app provides practical suggestions for improving health, how personalized those suggestions are, and whether recommendations are linked to the biomarkers, goals and other health information being tracked.
5. Professional and medical review
Longevity apps are wellness tools, but the information they provide may influence real health decisions.
We therefore looked at where doctors, scientists or other qualified professionals are involved — for example in reviewing biomarker information, interpreting results, developing recommendations or providing direct clinical support.
6. Scientific quality and transparency
Biological age, health scores and risk calculators can look precise even when the underlying methodology is unclear.
For each app, we looked at what is actually being calculated, whether the methodology or scientific basis is disclosed, whether users can see the sources behind important claims, and whether the result has been validated or compared with established research.
Transparency matters here: a proprietary score may still be useful, but users should be able to understand what it represents — and what it does not.
7. Mental health and stress are part of long-term health
Longevity is not only about blood biomarkers, exercise and sleep. Chronic psychological stress is associated with a higher risk of hypertension, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, while prolonged stress can affect both mental and physical health.
This is why some longevity apps now include stress and emotional-health features. But simply recording “I feel good” or “I feel bad” adds relatively little on its own. More useful tools may help people recognize emotions more precisely, identify patterns, learn healthier ways to respond to difficult emotional states, or examine stress alongside physiological measurements.
For this comparison, we therefore look not simply at whether an app can track mood or stress, but at what it does with that information and whether it provides meaningful support beyond logging.
8. Everyday support
Long-term health is shaped between blood tests, not only on the day they are taken.
We therefore considered whether the app helps users stay engaged with healthier habits through ongoing tracking and support — including activity, sleep, recovery, stress, mood, medications, supplements and other lifestyle factors.
These seven criteria form the basis of our Best Longevity Apps comparison below.
Best Longevity Apps: feature comparison
Rows are features; columns are the apps most often compared. All are wellness tools — none holds EU medical-device certification for diagnosis.
| What we compare | Healsens | Aware | Thriva | Merios | InsideTracker | Function Health |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What does the app tell you to track? | Check-up plans can evolve over time as age, lifestyle, priorities and health history change. Healsens uses established preventive-health guidelines as a reference framework to surface relevant biomarkers and screening topics at appropriate stages, while allowing plans to be customized and tracked over time. | Starts with defined Holistic Core/Advanced panels, then supports more targeted follow-up panels and re-testing. Current plans cover 51–99 markers depending on membership. | Adaptive testing in Compass. Initial broad baseline; follow-up testing can change based on previous results, health goals, wearable data and health profile. Self-guided users can also choose tests themselves. | testing can change based on previous results, health goals, wearable data and health profile. Self-guided users can also choose tests themselves. Bring-your-own-lab model. Tracks biomarkers from uploaded blood reports plus Apple Health data; does not currently provide a personalized blood-testing plan or arrange testing. | Uses a curated biomarker set selected for evidence, relevance to healthy users and actionability. Blood plans are structured rather than individualized screening plans. | Broad standardized baseline: 160+ annual lab tests, with optional add-ons and imaging. Health history is used to tailor interpretation, but the core testing package is broadly standardized. |
| Biomarker targets / personalized ranges | Three layers: laboratory reference range, Healsens Goal, and for supported biomarkers a personalized reference interval (prRI) based on the user’s own longitudinal history plus biological and analytical variation. | Public materials show result interpretation, biological age and recommendations, but I did not find current public documentation of individualized biomarker target ranges. | Uses optimal ranges derived by its clinical team from scientific literature and guidelines. Thriva says these may need interpretation in the context of age, sex, health history and lifestyle. | Uses biomarker scoring and discusses “functional ranges” in its editorial material, but public documentation of how individual target ranges are personalized is limited. | Personalized Optimal Zones based on research plus factors including age, sex, activity and other individual characteristics. InsideTracker distinguishes these from standard clinical ranges. | Public pages provide clinician-reviewed interpretation and action plans, but I did not find a current public methodology for personalized biomarker target ranges comparable to InsideTracker Optimal Zones or Healsens prRI. |
| Result analysis & longitudinal context | Multi-layer analysis. Individual results are supported by doctor-reviewed Health Tips with published sources. Stored biomarkers and measurements feed built-in calculators — for example, combining several inputs into metabolic-health, biological-age or other wellness indicators — while AI can answer questions using the broader health record as context. Results are also compared with previous measurements and shown over time; for supported biomarkers, longitudinal history is used to calculate a personalized reference interval (prRI) showing what is usual for that individual. | Primarily biomarker-level interpretation. For individual biomarkers, Aware provides health information, explains what high or low results may mean, and offers evidence-based strategies for keeping values in range. Previous blood tests can also be imported for comparison with newer results. Aware does not publicly document whether multiple biomarkers or wearable inputs are combined into broader calculated health models beyond the analyses included in its testing products. | Individual clinical interpretation is a major part of the product. Every Compass result is reviewed by an assigned doctor and returned with a plain-English report explaining what the findings mean in context; a 1:1 doctor consultation is included after each test. Its Health Assistant can then answer questions using blood results, doctor reports, health profile, goals and connected wearable data as context. Wearable metrics such as sleep, activity and cardiovascular fitness are displayed alongside blood results, although Thriva does not claim that these are simply combined into a single clinical score. | Cross-source scoring is central to the product. Merios parses uploaded blood results, turns individual markers into ranges and trends, calculates PhenoAge, and combines blood biomarkers with Apple Health data covering movement, sleep and stress into its proprietary Merios Score. The result is therefore more than a lab-history chart: multiple data types feed a composite model intended to show which areas contribute most to the overall score. Its public materials describe the score conceptually, although the full proprietary scoring formula is not publicly reproducible. | Biomarker analysis is built around personalized Optimal Zones. Blood results are analyzed to show where biomarkers fall relative to those zones, while historical bloodwork can be added to the same analysis. InnerAge provides a separate biological-age calculation, and blood, DNA and fitness-tracker data can feed the platform’s personalized analysis and Action Plan. Connected wearable data is also used to refine recommendations rather than serving only as a separate activity dashboard. | Clinician review plus contextual AI analysis. Function says clinicians review every lab result and flag important findings, while individual biomarkers include explanations and possible reasons for out-of-range values. Its Private AI Chat can answer questions using laboratory results, health history and connected-device data as context. Function also groups results by health area and supports longitudinal trend analysis; its Protocols use health data and goals to turn findings into personalized plans. |
| Lab ordering in app | Yes. Blood tests can be ordered through Healsens in supported European countries; external lab reports can also be uploaded from anywhere. | Yes. Users book tests through Aware in supported markets and receive results in the app. | Yes — UK. Offers self-guided and membership blood testing, including home collection options. | No. Merios currently describes itself as the interpretation layer for bloodwork obtained elsewhere. | Yes in supported markets. InsideTracker offers partner-lab blood testing and also accepts uploaded historical lab results. | Yes — US. Testing is arranged through 2,000+ Quest locations, with mobile collection available in selected areas. |
| Health optimization recommendations | Doctor-reviewed educational Health Tips for supported biomarkers with links to published sources; AI helps users explore results in context. | Personalized recommendations and targeted follow-up testing are part of Aware Pro. | Personalized, research-backed recommendations from doctors; Compass prioritizes a smaller number of changes based on results, goals and profile. | Provides personal protocols and recommendations ranked by expected relevance, based on uploaded lab and lifestyle data. | Strong Action Plan model with personalized nutrition, supplement, exercise and lifestyle recommendations tied to biomarkers and Optimal Zones. | Personalized Protocols include food, supplements, fitness, sleep and stress guidance and adapt as new health data is added. |
| Professional / medical review | Educational content is doctor reviewed, including Health Tips for supported biomarkers. Health Tips link to published sources. This is different from a doctor reviewing every user’s individual test result. | Offers doctor access / TeleClinic support; I did not find a claim that every individual test result is routinely reviewed by a doctor. | Strong clinician involvement. Thriva states every test is reviewed by a doctor; Compass includes access to the same doctor and 1:1 consultation after testing. | No routine clinician review currently documented. Merios says a Clinical Advisory role was still open in 2026 and describes itself as a wellness companion. | Science and recommendation systems are developed by scientific teams/advisors, but I did not find current evidence that every customer’s results are individually reviewed by a physician. | Strong clinician involvement. Function says clinicians review every result, flag important findings and provide written insights. |
| Scientific transparency of scores & calculators | Most calculators use published models or established formulas with supporting scientific literature. This includes PhenoAge and multiple biomarker ratios and health calculations. The allostatic load model is an exception: it was developed by Healsens scientific advisors rather than taken directly from a published model. The methodology and scientific basis of personalized reference intervals (prRI) are also publicly documented. | Biological Age is explicitly based on the 9-marker PhenoAge approach and Aware links to the underlying scientific paper. Public methodology for its broader recommendation engine is less detailed. | Publishes how its optimal ranges are developed from literature and clinical guidelines, including references. It is relatively transparent about the evidence behind these ranges. | Mixed. PhenoAge is openly identified as the Levine 2018 model with formula inputs and references. The proprietary Merios Score is described conceptually, but its full scoring method is less publicly reproducible. | Optimal Zones are described as being developed from peer-reviewed research, clinical standards and population data, with personalization based on factors such as age, sex and activity. InnerAge 2.0 is based partly on the published Klemera–Doubal biological-age method and InsideTracker’s proprietary dataset. InsideTracker publicly explains the model’s general approach and biomarker inputs, but the full algorithm is proprietary and cannot be independently reproduced from the published information. Peer-reviewed validation of InnerAge 2.0 itself against aging or health outcomes was not identified in the public scientific literature reviewed for this comparison. | Function publicly describes its Biological Age as a calculation derived from lab tests, but the exact algorithm is not specified on the public page I reviewed. Protocols are described as evidence-based and clinician informed. |
| Wearable / tracker connections | Yes. Wearable data such as sleep, activity and recovery can be kept alongside laboratory and lifestyle data. | Not clearly documented in the current public sources I reviewed. I would not claim specific integrations without a current Aware source. | Yes. Thriva documents wearable integration including Apple Watch, Garmin, WHOOP and Oura in Compass. | Yes. Apple Health is core to the product; Merios also claims additional wearable integrations in its comparison material. | Yes. Fitbit, Garmin, Oura and Apple Health are currently documented integrations. | Yes. Function says supported health apps and wearables can be connected, although its public FAQ does not list every supported device on the page reviewed. |
| Mental health support | Strong. Goes beyond mood logging with emotional granularity, emotion intensity and context, plus practical emotional-support guidance. Physiological stress context includes allostatic load and cortisol/DHEA-S assessment. | Low. Stress is addressed mainly through relevant blood biomarkers such as cortisol and related health insights. No dedicated emotional-awareness or emotion-support system is publicly documented. | Moderate. Tracks mood and stress and incorporates them into the broader health picture. Health guidance can address stress and related behaviors, but dedicated emotional-awareness or emotion-regulation tools are not publicly documented. | Moderate. Mood and stress can be logged and analyzed alongside bloodwork, sleep, symptoms and wearable data to identify relationships between health variables. This provides additional context, but dedicated emotional-support tools are not publicly documented. | Moderate. Stress can be selected as a health goal, with biomarker, sleep and lifestyle data used to prioritize relevant recommendations. The focus is primarily physiological and behavioral rather than emotional-awareness support. | Moderate. Approaches stress primarily through physiology, with dedicated Stress & Aging and Mental Health & Focus biomarker categories, including cortisol and DHEA-S, alongside stress-management guidance. Stronger on biological stress context than emotional self-awareness; dedicated mood tracking or emotional-regulation tools are not publicly documented. |
| Everyday health & habit support | Broad daily layer: mood, symptoms, stress, sleep, activity, alcohol, lifestyle and other self-tracked data alongside biomarkers. | Focuses primarily on blood testing, longitudinal progress and actions between tests; public materials emphasize follow-up and recommendations more than detailed daily self-tracking. | Strong ongoing layer through wearables, Health Assistant, Healthspan Dashboard and ongoing programme guidance. | Daily signal layer from Apple Health plus sleep, movement, recovery/stress and recommended protocols | Strong daily Action Plan/check-in model plus wearable inputs and continuous recommendations. | Protocols cover nutrition, fitness, sleep, supplements and stress; connected health-device data can also be used as context. |
| EU medical device certified | No — Healsens presents the app as informational/wellness software, not a diagnostic medical device. | No EU certification identified in the current public sources reviewed. | Thriva states that its Doc-Chain software is CE marked as a Class I medical device under the former EU Medical Device Directive and is MHRA registered | No — Merios explicitly states it is a wellness companion, not a medical device. | No EU medical-device certification identified in the current public sources reviewed | No EU certification identified; Function is currently a US service. |
Verify availability and pricing on each provider’s site — products change.
The 5 Best Longevity Apps for 2026
The best longevity apps in 2026 are increasingly sophisticated health platforms rather than simple trackers. The products in this comparison are among the stronger examples of this emerging category, and several are helping push it forward by combining consumer technology with laboratory medicine, established health research and, in some cases, new approaches to personalized health data.
What is striking is how differently they approach the same problem. Healsens starts with preventive-health planning and builds a longitudinal health record around it. Aware has developed a streamlined membership model around large blood-testing panels. Thriva puts individual doctor interpretation unusually close to the center of the consumer experience. Merios focuses on extracting more value from bloodwork people already have and combining it with everyday health data. InsideTracker has spent years developing personalized biomarker targets and action plans. Function Health brings very broad laboratory testing and clinician review into a premium US membership model.
That makes a single “best” app difficult to define. The more useful question is what kind of health support a person wants the app to provide.
Healsens — for preventive planning and a broader longitudinal health picture
Healsens takes one of the broader approaches in this comparison. Rather than starting with the same fixed blood panel for everyone, it starts with a health profile and a preventive check-up plan that can evolve with age, lifestyle, priorities and health history. Established preventive-health guidelines are used as a reference framework for deciding which biomarkers and screening topics may be relevant at different stages.
Once results are available, Healsens adds several layers of context: doctor-reviewed Health Tips with published sources, built-in health calculators, AI-assisted exploration of the broader health record, comparison with previous results and, for supported biomarkers, personalized reference intervals based on the individual’s own history.
It also extends beyond bloodwork into symptoms, wearables, lifestyle and emotional health. Its mood system is designed around emotional granularity rather than simple good/bad logging, while allostatic load and cortisol/DHEA-S provide additional physiological stress context.
The trade-off: Healsens does not provide individual physician review of every blood test in the way Thriva or Function Health does, and it does not offer detailed food logging. Its laboratory-ordering network is also concentrated in supported European markets, although existing laboratory results can be uploaded from anywhere.
Aware — for structured membership-based blood testing
Aware takes a more standardized approach. Its strength is a polished blood-testing workflow built around large predefined panels, membership-based re-testing and straightforward biomarker interpretation. Individual results include explanations of what high or low values may mean and evidence-based strategies for improving them.
This model can work particularly well for people who prefer a comprehensive panel rather than building a preventive plan marker by marker. Previous blood results can also be brought into the platform, allowing newer measurements to be viewed against earlier ones.
The trade-off: Aware’s public materials describe less personalization of biomarker targets and testing strategy than some of the other platforms in this comparison. Its approach to mental health and stress is also primarily biomarker-based rather than providing a dedicated emotional-awareness layer.
Thriva — for doctor-supported interpretation
Thriva stands out for putting clinicians unusually close to the consumer blood-testing experience. In Compass, results are reviewed by an assigned doctor and returned with a plain-English report, with a 1:1 doctor consultation available after testing. Its Health Assistant can then use blood results, doctor reports, health profile, goals and connected wearable information as context for further questions.
Testing can also adapt after the initial baseline rather than simply repeating the same panel indefinitely. Wearable connections add sleep, activity and cardiovascular-fitness data to the broader health picture.
The trade-off: Thriva is fundamentally built around the UK market, making its testing workflow less relevant for continental European users. Its public materials also describe fewer proprietary health calculators or personalized reference-range methods than some platforms focused more heavily on quantitative self-analysis.
Merios — for making more of bloodwork you already have
Merios takes a distinctly different approach: it does not need to arrange the blood test. Users bring laboratory results obtained elsewhere, and the platform turns those results into longitudinal biomarker data, PhenoAge and a broader proprietary Merios Score.
Its interesting feature is cross-source analysis. Blood biomarkers can be combined with Apple Health information such as movement, sleep and stress, while logged mood, symptoms and other signals can provide additional context. This makes Merios particularly relevant for people who already have access to regular laboratory testing and want an interpretation layer above it.
The trade-off: there is no integrated laboratory-ordering workflow or routine clinician review. PhenoAge is based on a published and reproducible scientific model, while the proprietary Merios Score is less transparent and cannot be independently reproduced from its public methodology.
InsideTracker — for personalized biomarker targets and action plans
InsideTracker is one of the longest-established companies in consumer biomarker tracking and has developed one of the more mature systems for turning blood results into personalized targets and actions.
Its Optimal Zones go beyond standard laboratory reference ranges by incorporating scientific literature and individual characteristics such as age, sex and activity. Results then feed personalized Action Plans covering nutrition, supplements, exercise and lifestyle, with wearable data providing additional context between blood tests.
InsideTracker also provides its InnerAge 2.0 biological-age estimate. The general approach and biomarker inputs are publicly described and draw partly on the published Klemera–Doubal method, although the complete InnerAge algorithm and underlying proprietary dataset are not publicly reproducible.
The trade-off: testing is built primarily around predefined biomarker bundles rather than an evolving preventive-screening plan. Its native laboratory workflow is also much more practical in North America than for European users.
Function Health — for broad testing with clinician oversight
Function Health takes the most testing-intensive approach in this group. Its US membership model centers on broad recurring laboratory panels, with clinicians reviewing results, flagging important findings and providing written insights.
The platform increasingly goes beyond displaying laboratory results. Private AI Chat can use labs, health history and connected-device information as context, while Protocols translate health data and goals into guidance covering food, supplements, fitness, sleep and stress. Function also gives stress and mental-health physiology substantial attention through dedicated biomarker categories.
The trade-off: Function is a premium US service rather than a practical laboratory-ordering option for European users. Some of its calculated outputs are also less publicly reproducible than established published models such as PhenoAge.
So which longevity app is right for you?
There is no single model for what a longevity app should be.
Some platforms begin with what to test. Others begin with the blood results, clinical interpretation, personalized targets, or continuous wearable data. The strongest products increasingly combine several of these layers.
The most useful distinction is therefore not which app has the longest biomarker list or the most impressive health score, but what happens to the data after it enters the app: whether it changes what is monitored next, adds scientifically interpretable context, leads to meaningful recommendations, supports everyday health decisions, or simply becomes another chart.
That is likely to become an increasingly important distinction as longevity apps move from health tracking toward more integrated preventive-health support.
Frequently asked questions
What are the best longevity health apps in Europe?
There is no universal winner among longevity health apps in Europe. Best depends on country (NL vs UK vs DACH), whether you need lab ordering, marker catalog depth, doctor-reviewed tips, mental wellbeing tracking, Apple Health integration, or upload-only analytics. Healsens fits Dutch and continental EU users who want profile-based planning; Aware fits DACH membership panels; Thriva fits the UK; Merios fits global PDF upload.
Which app has the most biomarkers?
Healsens maintains 350+ biomarkers in the catalog with doctor-reviewed tips on each. Aware markets larger single-package counts (~90+). Merios parses 130+ from whatever is on your PDF. Function Health markets 100+ per membership draw. InsideTracker Ultimate is ~54 markers per fixed bundle. Compare philosophy, not one headline number.
Can I use more than one app?
Yes — for example upload the same PDF to Merios for a score while using Healsens for NL lab ordering and preventive planning. Most users pick one primary hub.
All head-to-head comparisons
General information only — not medical advice. Verify features and pricing before purchase.
PHP: 2026-09-21 17:13:43 [notice X 0][/var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/elementor/core/experiments/manager.php::129] version_compare(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($version2) of type string is deprecated [array (
‘trace’ => ‘
#0: Elementor\Core\Logger\Manager -> shutdown()
‘,
)]
