InsideTracker is best for a focused blood panel tightly coupled to specific nutrition, exercise and supplement interventions. Function Health is best for a dense, clinician-reviewed annual baseline. AMORTAL is neither: it takes whichever you choose and turns the results into one ranked next action, a watchlist, a clinician-ready question, and an outcome loop — including when to do nothing.
InsideTracker and Function Health both turn your blood into a plan — but they make different bets. InsideTracker leans into a focused panel tightly coupled to specific interventions: personalized nutrition, exercise and supplement suggestions built off your markers. Function leans into a broader, denser, clinician-reviewed annual baseline, drawn through a national lab-location network, with results and action plans.
Both answer “what do my numbers look like?” well, in their own way. InsideTracker even tells you what to change, and Function gives you the breadth — but neither closes the harder loop that comes next: “did the change actually work, once you control for everything else that moved?” 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 InsideTracker or Function for the data. Use AMORTAL to decide what the data should change, control the confounders, and prove whether an intervention actually worked.
The short version: who each is for
Two of these produce data — one with interventions attached, one with breadth — and the third decides what to do with whichever you have. Here’s the honest split.
Which one fits which job
InsideTrackerBest for biomarker-specific interventionsA focused blood biomarker analysis (store copy references up to 54 biomarkers) paired with personalized nutrition, exercise and supplement suggestions tied to your markers. Strongest when you want a targeted panel that comes with built-in lifestyle interventions, not just numbers.
Function HealthBest for a dense annual baselineA wide, clinician-reviewed annual panel (Function advertises 160+ lab tests) drawn through a national lab-location network, with results and action plans. Strongest when you want the densest annual snapshot and a structured report to react to.
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." InsideTracker answers what should I change for a focused panel, Function answers what are my numbers at breadth; AMORTAL answers did it actually work. The strongest setup is one provider plus AMORTAL.
InsideTracker vs Function Health 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 an intervention-led panel, a dense baseline, and one decision layer.
InsideTracker — the intervention-led panel
A blood biomarker analysis paired with personalized recommendations: InsideTracker advertises nutrition, exercise and supplement interventions tied to your markers, with store copy referencing up to 54 biomarkers.
You want a focused panel that comes with built-in lifestyle interventions rather than raw numbers alone. Verify the current marker list, plan and price before buying.
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 (Quest) network.
You want one dense, clinician-reviewed snapshot a year and a structured report to work from. Verify the current marker count, price and partner network 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 — and it insists you change one variable at a time so the result is attributable.
You already have results and the real question is "did it work?" — controlling confounders, changing one thing at a time, and knowing 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 | InsideTracker | Function Health | AMORTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best use case | Focused panel with built-in interventions | Dense annual biomarker baseline | Deciding what the data should change |
| Collection method | Blood draw (lab; at-home options as advertised) | Blood draw at a lab location | No draws — works from results you have |
| Lab partner / processing | Lab analysis + algorithmic recommendations (advertised) | National lab-location (Quest) network (advertised) | Lab-agnostic; vendor-neutral |
| Biomarker breadth | Focused panel (store references up to 54) | Wide annual panel (advertises 160+) | Doesn’t test; reads whatever you bring |
| Wearable integration | Verify current offering | Not the core product | Connects labs to Oura / Whoop / Apple Watch |
| Upload existing labs | Its own analysis | Its own panel | Yes — bring either provider’s results in |
| Clinician review | Algorithmic recommendations (advertised) | Clinician-reviewed + action plans (advertised) | Clinician-compatible questions; not a clinician |
| Action plan depth | Nutrition / exercise / supplement suggestions (advertised) | Standardised action plans | One ranked next best action, plus restraint |
| Retesting cadence | Re-test to track interventions (as advertised) | Annual membership cadence | Tells you when not to retest yet |
| Result trend tracking | Trends across InsideTracker tests | Trends across Function panels | Longitudinal memory across providers and time |
| Abnormal-result handling | Flags + guidance (as advertised) | Flags + clinician review | Safety-gated; routes urgent flags to a clinician |
| Cost model | Plan / per-test pricing (verify current) | Annual membership (advertises ~$365/yr; verify) | Decision layer — founding membership |
| Where AMORTAL fits | Targeted interventions in | Dense baseline in | → ranked decision, watchlist, outcome loop out |
Provider rows describe what each company publicly advertises as of June 2026 — pricing, marker counts, partner networks and included features change often, 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 |
|---|---|
| A focused panel that comes with built-in lifestyle interventions | InsideTracker |
| Specific nutrition, exercise and supplement suggestions tied to my markers | InsideTracker |
| The densest clinician-reviewed annual baseline | Function Health |
| One dense annual snapshot drawn at a lab location | Function Health |
| I already have results — tell me what to do next | AMORTAL |
| To know whether an intervention actually worked | AMORTAL |
| To change one variable at a time, not five | AMORTAL |
| To control for confounders before trusting a change | AMORTAL |
| A clinician-ready question, not a treatment directive | AMORTAL |
| To know whether I should retest yet | AMORTAL |
Where AMORTAL fits — whichever you pick
The model is the same regardless of which test you choose: let the provider do the testing, then run the result through a decision process instead of a dashboard.
- Bring the result in. Upload your InsideTracker or Function 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, constraints — and the confounders that could explain a change.
- 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 — 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 InsideTracker or Function panel returns a fasting glucose nudging above your usual range (illustrative only — not a target or reference range). InsideTracker might suggest three changes at once; a dashboard just shows a yellow number.
AMORTAL files it next to your prior glucose and HbA1c, your goals, your medications and your wearable sleep and activity trends — read as a trajectory, not a single dot.
One lever, not three. The expected signal (fasting-glucose direction) and the window to see it are written down before anything changes — and the other suggested changes are deliberately held back so the result stays 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 on a guess or a renewal date.
At the next draw, AMORTAL checks: did it move as expected — and did sleep, illness or stress confound it? If it holds up, 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.
Before you start: will you know if it worked?
InsideTracker hands you interventions and Function hands you breadth — but a change only counts if you can attribute it. Tick what’s genuinely true before you start. You need all three, or the result won’t tell you anything.
Will you actually know if it worked?
Answer honestly for the intervention you're about to start. All three, or you won't be able to attribute the result.
Tick what's true above
Your attribution check appears here.
A guide, not a guarantee. Urgent or out-of-range results go to a clinician now, whichever provider produced them.
Where each is strongest — and where it isn’t
In fairness to all three:
- InsideTracker is strongest when you want a focused panel that hands you specific nutrition, exercise and supplement changes — and less ideal if you’d act on several of those changes at once and lose the ability to tell which one worked.
- 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.
- Verify before you buy. Marker counts, prices, promotions and included features change for both — confirm the current details on each provider’s own pages.
- Breadth and built-in tips are a beginning, not an answer. Neither closes a rigorous outcome loop across confounders, 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. The stronger model is to let a provider like InsideTracker or Function do the testing, 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 — one variable at a time, so the answer is attributable.
Whichever you picked, the result is only worth as much as what you do with it. “Already have results from InsideTracker or Function Health? 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 — verify on the official pages before purchase.
InsideTracker — analysis claims plus personalized nutrition, exercise and supplement interventions.
InsideTracker store — biomarker list and plan pricing (store copy references up to 54 biomarkers).
Function Health — membership, what's tested, and clinician-reviewed panels.
Function Health pricing — annual membership and any promotional offers.
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
InsideTracker vs Function Health — which should I choose?
It depends on what you want from the test. InsideTracker is strongest as a focused biomarker panel that comes with built-in lifestyle interventions — personalized nutrition, exercise and supplement suggestions tied to your markers. Function is strongest as a dense, clinician-reviewed annual baseline drawn through a national lab-location network. Both publish their own marker counts and pricing, which change often — verify the current details before buying. Whichever you pick, AMORTAL works on top of the results.
Can AMORTAL work with results from either InsideTracker or Function?
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.
Does AMORTAL replace InsideTracker or Function Health?
No. They do a different job. InsideTracker and Function produce biomarker data and suggestions; AMORTAL decides what that data should change, what to ignore, what to watch, and when to retest — and it enforces changing one variable at a time so any result is attributable. Most people who use AMORTAL keep their provider for the testing and use AMORTAL to turn each result into an auditable decision and an outcome loop.
Function tests more markers than InsideTracker — is the bigger panel better?
Not automatically. Function advertises a wider annual panel and InsideTracker advertises a tighter, intervention-focused one — breadth is useful for a baseline, but more markers also mean more borderline results that tempt over-reaction. The right panel is the one that changes a realistic decision. AMORTAL evaluates whether a given marker actually moves a decision, whether the result is timely, and whether a clinician should weigh in — so breadth becomes useful instead of noisy.
InsideTracker already suggests interventions — what does AMORTAL add?
InsideTracker advertises specific nutrition, exercise and supplement suggestions, which is a real strength. What it doesn't do is close a rigorous outcome loop across confounders. AMORTAL writes down one change, the single signal you'd expect it to move, and the window to watch — in advance — then checks later whether it actually worked, accounting for things like sleep, illness and stress. It's deliberately built to recommend doing nothing when that's the right call.
How do I know whether an intervention actually worked?
Only if you set it up to be measurable. If you change several things at once, never note the expected signal, or retest on a guess, you can't attribute any change to any cause. AMORTAL insists on one variable at a time, records the expected direction and window before you start, and tells you when a retest would be informative versus premature — so a result is something you can actually attribute rather than a story told over noise.