Function Health is best for a dense, clinician-reviewed annual biomarker baseline drawn at a lab location. Hundred Health is best for an integrated program that folds labs, medical history and wearable data into a clinician-built 100-day protocol. AMORTAL is neither: it takes whichever you choose and turns the results into one auditable next action, a watchlist, and an outcome loop you keep across platforms.
Function Health and Hundred Health are two of the most talked-about ways to turn your blood into a plan — and they’re built on different bets. Function leans into a dense, clinician-reviewed annual panel drawn through a lab-location network. Hundred leans into an integrated program that folds labs together with your medical history and wearable data, then has clinicians build a 100-day protocol from all three.
Both answer “what do my numbers look like?” well, in their own way — and Hundred goes a step further toward “so what’s the plan?” Neither is built to answer the harder question underneath that: “which change actually worked, what should I ignore, and can I keep that reasoning when I switch tools?” That’s the gap this page is about — and where AMORTAL fits, on top of whichever one you pick. It’s educational, not medical advice.
vs
+
Use Function for the dense baseline, or Hundred for the integrated protocol. Use AMORTAL to decide what the data should change, tell which change moved a marker, and keep that decision history across platforms.
The short version: who each is for
Two of these turn data into a plan in different shapes; the third decides what to do with whichever you have — and remembers why. Here’s the honest split.
Which one fits which job
Function HealthBest for a dense annual baselineA wide, clinician-reviewed biomarker panel run once or twice a year through a lab-location draw. Strongest when you want a dense snapshot and a structured report to react to.
Hundred HealthBest for an integrated data-to-protocol programAdvanced labs folded together with your medical history and wearable data, then turned into a clinician-built 100-day protocol. Strongest when you want a program that builds the plan for you.
AMORTALBest for deciding what to do nextNot a lab. A longitudinal decision layer that reads whatever results you already have — from either provider — and returns one ranked next action, a watchlist, a clinician-ready question, and an outcome loop. Including when to do nothing.
This isn't an "A beats B." Function answers what are my numbers, Hundred answers what's my program, and AMORTAL answers which change worked and what to keep. The strongest setup is one provider plus AMORTAL.
Function vs Hundred vs AMORTAL, at a glance
Tap between the three to see what each is actually responsible for.
What each one owns
Same goal — better decisions from your blood — split into one dense snapshot, one integrated program, and one decision layer.
Function — the dense baseline
A broad annual biomarker membership: a wide panel (Function advertises 160+ lab tests annually), clinician-reviewed results, and action plans, with the draw done through a national lab-location network.
You want one dense, clinician-reviewed snapshot a year and a structured report to work from. Verify the current marker count, price and lab network before buying.
Hundred — the integrated program
An integrated proactive-care platform: advanced labs, medical-history collection and wearable data, turned into a clinician-built 100-day protocol. Hundred advertises 100+ advanced labs (launch coverage cited 160+ and ~$499/year) — verify current.
You want a program that pulls labs, history and wearables together and builds the plan for you. Verify the current marker count, price and what's included before buying.
AMORTAL — the decision layer
Not a lab. It takes either provider's results, normalises them into a memory, and produces one ranked next action, a watchlist, a clinician-ready question, and an outcome loop — with restraint built in, and the reasoning kept with you.
You already have results or a protocol and the real question is "what now?" — what to change, what to ignore, which change worked, and when a retest is actually worth it.
AMORTAL has no direct integration with either — you bring the data in by upload or manual entry.
The comparison, row by row
| Dimension | Function Health | Hundred Health | AMORTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best use case | Dense annual biomarker baseline | Integrated data-to-protocol program | Deciding what the data should change |
| Collection method | Blood draw at a lab location | Labs + medical history + wearable data (advertised) | No draws — works from results you have |
| Lab partner / processing | National lab-location network — Quest (advertised) | Advanced lab testing (as advertised) | Lab-agnostic; vendor-neutral |
| Biomarker breadth | Wide annual panel (advertises 160+) | 100+ advanced labs (launch coverage cited 160+ — verify) | Doesn’t test; reads whatever you bring |
| Medical history / context | Not the core product | Collects medical history (advertised) | Links results to goals, meds, constraints |
| Wearable integration | Not the core product | Uses wearable data (as advertised) | Connects labs to Oura / Whoop / Apple Watch |
| Upload existing labs | Its own panel | Its own program intake | Yes — bring either provider’s results in |
| Clinician review | Clinician-reviewed + action plans (advertised) | Clinician-built protocols (as advertised) | Clinician-compatible questions; not a clinician |
| Action plan depth | Standardised action plans | Clinician-built 100-day protocol (advertised) | One ranked next best action, plus restraint |
| Retesting cadence | Annual membership cadence | 100-day program cadence | Tells you when not to retest yet |
| Result trend tracking | Trends across Function panels | In-program tracking over the protocol | Longitudinal memory across providers and time |
| Abnormal-result handling | Flags + clinician review | Clinician-built protocol routing (as advertised) | Safety-gated; routes urgent flags to a clinician |
| Cost model | Annual membership (advertises ~$365/yr; verify) | ~$499/year per launch coverage (verify current) | Decision layer — founding membership |
| Where AMORTAL fits | Dense baseline in | Integrated program data in | → ranked decision, watchlist, outcome loop out |
Provider rows describe what each company publicly advertises as of June 2026 — pricing, marker counts, lab partners and included features change often, and Hundred's launch coverage and current site differ on the numbers, so confirm current details on each provider's own pages before buying. Sources are at the foot of this page.
Which one fits what you actually want
| What you want | Reach for |
|---|---|
| The densest clinician-reviewed annual baseline | Function Health |
| An integrated program that builds a protocol for me | Hundred Health |
| Labs, medical history and wearables folded into one plan | Hundred Health |
| I already have results — tell me what to do next | AMORTAL |
| An auditable decision I keep across platforms | AMORTAL |
| To know whether I should retest yet | AMORTAL |
| A clinician-ready question, not a treatment directive | AMORTAL |
| To tell which change actually moved a marker | AMORTAL |
| To avoid changing five things at once | AMORTAL |
| To carry one provider’s protocol into the other later | AMORTAL |
Where AMORTAL fits — whichever you pick
The model is the same regardless of which membership you choose: let the provider do the testing or build the protocol, then run the result through a decision process that stays with you instead of a dashboard that doesn’t.
- Bring the result in. Upload your Function or Hundred report, or enter the key markers — there's no direct integration, so you carry the data over.
- Normalise into memory. AMORTAL files each biomarker into a longitudinal record, not a one-off screen.
- Connect the context. Results are linked to your goals, symptoms, wearables, medications and constraints.
- Activate the standards. The guidelines and decision rules that actually apply to your situation switch on.
- Produce a Decision Contract. One change at a time, with the expected signal and the window written down in advance.
- Rank one Next Best Action. Not ten. The single highest-value move — which may be "do nothing yet."
- Set the watchlist. Markers worth re-checking get an expected direction and a recheck window.
- Close the loop. When the next panel or outcome signal arrives, AMORTAL checks whether the action worked — attributes the move to that one change, and keeps or discards it.
A decision loop, end to end
Here’s the same flow on a single example — illustrative numbers only, not a target or a reference range.
From a result to a tracked outcome
Your Function panel — or your Hundred intake — returns an elevated ApoB (say, in a range your clinician flags as worth attention). On a dashboard, or inside a 100-day protocol, that's a red number folded into a plan with several moving parts.
AMORTAL files it next to your prior lipids, your goals, your medications and your wearable trends — read as a trajectory, not a single dot.
One lever, not five. The expected signal (ApoB direction) and the window to see it are written down before anything changes — so a multi-part protocol doesn't become un-attributable.
Framed as a clinician-ready question — "given this trend, is [one specific lever] the right first move?" — not a treatment directive AMORTAL has no authority to give.
The marker goes on watch with an expected direction and a recheck window — so you retest when it's informative, not at day 100 by default or on a renewal date.
At the next draw, AMORTAL checks: did it move as expected, and was it this change that moved it? If yes, the change earns its place. If not, it's dropped — no story told over noise.
AMORTAL doesn't diagnose and isn't a substitute for your clinician — anything urgent goes to a professional, now.
Is your data-to-protocol loop auditable?
A program can hand you a plan and still leave you unable to say what worked. Tick what’s genuinely true of your current loop — whichever provider you use.
Is your data-to-protocol loop auditable?
Answer honestly for the way you actually work today. An auditable loop should clear at least two.
Tick what's true above
Your read on the loop appears here.
A guide, not a guarantee. Whichever provider tests you or builds your protocol, AMORTAL is the layer that makes the loop one-change-at-a-time, attributable, and yours to keep.
Where each is strongest — and where it isn’t
In fairness to all three:
- Function is strongest when you want a dense, clinician-reviewed annual baseline without assembling a panel yourself — and less ideal if your bottleneck is deciding on data you already have, or keeping that reasoning when you move on.
- Hundred is strongest when you want labs, medical history and wearables pulled into one clinician-built 100-day protocol — and less ideal if you’d rather not have your decisions anchored inside one program’s ecosystem, or you need to attribute which single change actually worked.
- Verify before you buy. Marker counts, prices and included features change for both — and Hundred’s launch coverage (160+ advanced labs, ~$499/year) differs from its current site (100+) — so confirm the current details on each provider’s own pages.
- Breadth is a beginning, not an answer. A bigger panel or a fuller protocol still isn’t a decision, and some results will need a clinician; AMORTAL should never be read as a diagnosis, whichever provider produced the number.
Bring your results into a decision, not a dashboard
AMORTAL doesn’t need to be where you buy your blood tests or where your protocol is built. The stronger model is to let a provider like Function or Hundred do the testing and the program, then use AMORTAL as the longitudinal decision system around those results. Upload the report, or enter the markers that matter. AMORTAL turns the result into memory, evaluates what’s still missing, ranks the next best action, sets a watchlist for the signals to expect, and later checks whether the action actually worked — and keeps that reasoning with you even if you switch tools.
Already have results from Function or Hundred? Bring them into AMORTAL and ask: “What should I do next?”
Sources
Provider claims describe what each company publicly advertised when this page was last fact-checked (26 June 2026). Pricing, marker counts and included features are volatile — and Hundred’s launch coverage and current site differ on the numbers — so verify on the official pages before purchase.
Function Health — membership, what's tested, and clinician-reviewed panels.
Function Health pricing — annual membership and any promotional offers.
Hundred Health — platform claims: advanced labs, medical history, wearable data and clinician-built 100-day protocols.
HLTH — Hundred Health launch coverage: integrated proactive-care platform, cited 160+ advanced labs and ~$499/year.
Educational only — this is not medical advice or a diagnosis. Talk to a licensed clinician about your own numbers, targets, and any treatment decisions.
Frequently asked
Function Health vs Hundred Health — which should I choose?
It depends on what you want from the membership. Function is strongest as a dense, clinician-reviewed annual biomarker baseline drawn at a lab location. Hundred is strongest as an integrated program that folds labs together with your medical history and wearable data into a clinician-built 100-day protocol. Both publish their own marker counts and pricing, and Hundred's launch coverage and current site differ on the numbers — verify the current details before buying. Whichever you pick, AMORTAL works on top of the results.
Can AMORTAL work with results from either Function or Hundred?
Yes. AMORTAL is lab-agnostic and works from results you already have — you bring them in by uploading the report or entering key markers (there's no direct integration with either). It normalises the biomarkers into a longitudinal memory, connects them to your goals, wearables and protocols, and returns one ranked next action rather than another dashboard. The provider you chose stays your data source; AMORTAL is the decision layer you keep even if you switch platforms.
Does AMORTAL replace Function Health or Hundred Health?
No. They do a different job. Function produces and reviews biomarker data; Hundred turns data into a clinician-built program. AMORTAL decides what each result should change, what to ignore, what to watch, and when to retest — and records why. Most people who use AMORTAL keep their provider for the testing or the protocol, and use AMORTAL to turn each result into an auditable decision and an outcome loop that travels with them.
Hundred says it builds a 100-day protocol — how is AMORTAL different?
Hundred builds the program; AMORTAL makes the loop auditable and portable. Hundred turns your labs, history and wearable data into a clinician-built 100-day protocol inside its platform. AMORTAL writes down one change at a time, the single signal you'd expect it to move, and the window to watch — in advance — then later checks whether that specific change actually worked, and keeps that decision history with you even if you leave the platform. The two can sit together: run the protocol, and use AMORTAL to attribute what moved and why.
Which tests more — and is a bigger biomarker panel always better?
The marker counts here are genuinely contested: Function advertises 160+ lab tests a year, while Hundred advertises 100+ advanced labs on its site even though launch coverage cited 160+ — so verify the current number on each provider's own page rather than trusting a headline. And more markers isn't automatically better. Breadth is useful for a baseline, but it also means more borderline results that tempt over-reaction. AMORTAL evaluates whether a marker actually changes a realistic decision, whether the result is timely, and what downstream signal to watch — so breadth becomes useful instead of noisy.
When should I retest after using Function or Hundred?
That depends on what you changed and how long it takes to show up in blood — not on the calendar, a membership renewal, or the end of a 100-day program. AMORTAL sets an expected window per marker and tells you when a retest would be informative versus premature. Retesting too early is one of the most common ways people waste a panel and misread normal variation as the result of a protocol.