Why KINS Uses TruDiagnostic — and What the Alternatives Miss

Every KINS guest gets an epigenetic panel on day 1. We chose TruDiagnostic — and the reason is specific.

When I ran my own TruDiagnostic panel (May 2025, sample ID SL5U5EK), the composite OMICm Age came back at 24.5 — biologically younger than my chronological 30. If I'd run a single-clock test (MyDNAge, Elysium), I would have gotten that headline number and left feeling good about it.

But TruDiagnostic runs Symphony Age — an 11-organ-system breakdown. That's what showed my hormone system aging at 38.7 (+8.7 years), metabolic at 34.3 (+4.3), liver at 34.9 (+4.9). The composite hid the damage. The organ-system breakdown surfaced it. The entire KINS protocol was built around that gap.

No other consumer test gives you the organ-system view. That's why we chose it — and why the comparison below isn't really close for clinical purposes.

(If you haven't read Why we start every stay with an epigenetic test yet — start there. This post assumes you know what a methylation clock is.)

What you're actually comparing

Before comparing companies, you need to know that most epigenetic tests use the same underlying technology (the Illumina methylation array) and different analytical clocks to interpret the data.

The differences come from:

1. Which clocks the company runs — Horvath, GrimAge, PhenoAge, DunedinPACE, OMICm Age, Symphony Age, etc.
2. Whether they use principal-component (PC) corrected versions — newer reliability-improved clock variants
3. Which array they use — 450K vs 850K EPIC. The 850K is now the standard.¹
4. Sample type — blood vs saliva. Blood gives higher signal quality.
5. Lab certification — CLIA-certified vs research-grade
6. Reporting / dashboard — how you actually see and interpret your results
7. Repeat testing infrastructure — can you easily run again in 6 months?

The actual lab work is similar across companies. The interpretation, presentation, and which clocks are included is where they differentiate.

TruDiagnostic TruAge

Best for: most people. Comprehensive panel, organ-system breakdown, reliability-corrected clocks.

The TruAge panel runs six different clocks from a single blood sample:

• OMICm Age (Harvard collaboration) — multi-omic composite biological age
• Symphony Age (Yale collaboration) — biological age across 11 organ systems separately
• DunedinPACE (Duke collaboration) — rate of aging speedometer
• PhenoAge — health-weighted biological age
• GrimAge — mortality risk prediction
• Telomere length — separate from methylation clocks

What it does well:

• Most clocks of any consumer test. You get the headline number AND the organ-system breakdown AND the rate-of-aging metric.
• PC-corrected clocks. Uses principal-component versions for better test-retest reliability.²
• CLIA-certified lab. Run at TruDiagnostic's own Lexington, KY facility.
• The organ-system breakdown is uniquely useful. This is what surfaced the Hormone +8.7 gap in my own panel that the composite hid.
• Strong repeat-test infrastructure. Built for tracking biological age over time.

What TruDiagnostic gets wrong:

• $350-400 is mid-range. Not the cheapest, not premium-priced. Some find it steep.
• 47-page PDF can be overwhelming without a guide to read it
• Marketing skews biohacker-y at times (less so than it used to)
• No physician interpretation included at the base tier

Who should pick TruDiagnostic:

• People who want the organ-system breakdown (the Symphony Age component)
• People who care about DunedinPACE for tracking interventions
• People running a longevity protocol who'll retest in 6 months
• KINS guests (this is what every KINS guest runs)

Elysium Index

Best for: people who want a Harvard-backed test focused on the headline biological age number.

Elysium Health is a longevity company best known for Tru Niagen (the NMN/NR supplement). They launched their Index biological age test as part of their broader longevity platform.

What it does well:

• Harvard scientific advisory board. David Sinclair (lab) and Lenny Guarente are involved. Real research credentials.
• Polished consumer dashboard. Probably the best UX of any consumer biological age test.
• Bundled with their supplements platform. Convenient if you're already using Elysium products.
• Repeat testing reminders and trend visualization built into their app.

What Elysium Index gets wrong:

• Fewer clocks. Their proprietary "Index" algorithm vs. the multiple clocks TruDiagnostic runs.
• No organ-system breakdown equivalent to Symphony Age.
• Premium pricing. $499+ depending on tier, often bundled with supplement subscription.
• Methodology less transparent than TruDiagnostic's peer-reviewed approach.

Who should pick Elysium Index:

• People who want a clean, polished consumer experience
• People already in the Elysium ecosystem
• People who want a single trend number rather than a clinical panel
• People who don't need the granular organ-system data

MyDNAge

Best for: the cheapest legit option. Single Horvath clock, no frills.

MyDNAge was one of the original direct-to-consumer biological age tests, launched by Epimorphy. They run only the Horvath clock.

What it does well:

• Affordable. ~$300, the lowest of these four.
• Established history. Has been on the market since 2017.
• Simple report. Just the biological age number, no overwhelming multi-page PDF.
• CLIA-certified.

What MyDNAge gets wrong:

• Only the Horvath clock. No DunedinPACE, no GrimAge, no organ-system data.
• Original Horvath, not PC-corrected. Less reliable test-retest than newer variants.
• Less responsive to intervention. Horvath was trained on chronological age, so it underestimates the impact of recent lifestyle changes.
• Limited dashboard. Static report rather than ongoing platform.

Who should pick MyDNAge:

• People who want to spend the least money
• People satisfied with a single biological age number
• People who just want to know if they're "biologically older or younger than chronological"
• Not appropriate for: people tracking interventions over time, people running longevity protocols

Hooke

Best for: saliva-based testing. People who don't want a blood draw. Repeat-test convenience.

Hooke is a newer entrant focused on making epigenetic age testing more accessible through saliva collection.

What it does well:

• Saliva-based. No blood draw needed. Easier collection.
• Repeat-friendly. Built for tracking over time.
• Affordable. ~$300-400, mid-range.
• Reasonable clock breadth — Horvath, GrimAge, and pace-of-aging variants in their newer kits.

What Hooke gets wrong:

• **Saliva signal quality is slightly lower than blood.**³ Not by a huge margin, but real.
• Newer company. Less validation history than TruDiagnostic or MyDNAge.
• Reporting less detailed than TruDiagnostic's full panel.
• No organ-system breakdown.

Who should pick Hooke:

• People who avoid blood draws (needle phobia, etc.)
• People who want to retest every 3 months without the hassle of blood collection
• People who prioritize convenience over maximum clinical detail

How they compare on the dimensions that actually matter

What I personally recommend

If you're picking one biological age test:

Default pick: TruDiagnostic. Most comprehensive, most useful for tracking interventions, the organ-system breakdown is genuinely unique among consumer tests. This is what KINS uses. This is what I ran.

If price is the constraint: MyDNAge gets you a real Horvath biological age number for the least money. Acceptable if you just want to know roughly where you are.

If you want a polished consumer experience and a single trend: Elysium Index. Especially if you're already in the Elysium ecosystem.

If you avoid blood draws or want easy repeat testing: Hooke saliva-based kit.

KINS doesn't currently have an affiliate relationship with any of these. The link to TruDiagnostic at the top of this post goes directly to their site — no commission. We use them because the panel is the most useful clinically, not because they pay us.

What none of these tests do

Honest limits, applicable to all four:

• None of them diagnose disease. Elevated biological age signals trajectory, not pathology.
• None of them predict the future deterministically. Biological age responds to intervention.
• None of them replace your annual physical. Mammograms, blood pressure tracking, etc. are separate.
• None of them eliminate test-retest variability. Run the same sample twice and you'll get slightly different numbers. The trend over multiple timepoints matters more than any single test.
• None of them are insurance-covered. Out of pocket.

FAQ

Should I run the same company's test repeatedly, or rotate?
Same company. Different companies use different algorithms; you can't compare across them. Track one company's trend over 12-24 months.

Is one test enough, or do I need multiple over time?
One test gives you a snapshot. Two or three over 6-12 months show you the trend. For meaningful longevity protocol tracking, plan on 2-4 tests per year.

What if I want second-opinion verification?
Run TruDiagnostic and Hooke at the same timepoint. Different sample types, different clocks — won't agree on absolute numbers, but if both show acceleration, that's a stronger signal.

Can I split a blood sample between two companies?
Most labs require their own collection kit. So no — you'd need to coordinate two separate finger-prick collections done in the same window (within a few days).

Will my insurance cover any of these?
Almost never. Insurance covers diagnostic tests for disease. Epigenetic age testing is preventive — categorized as elective.

What about other tests I've seen marketed?
There are several smaller companies. Most use the same underlying tech with smaller marketing budgets. If a company doesn't have peer-reviewed publications on their methodology, they probably aren't worth the price.

What this comparison is, and isn't

This is the honest version. TruDiagnostic is the strongest combination of clock breadth + reliability + organ-system insight for most people running a longevity protocol. The other three have specific niches but trail TruDiagnostic on overall capability.

KINS doesn't have affiliate relationships with any of these companies. We recommend TruDiagnostic because we use it ourselves and have the highest confidence in the data quality. If KINS establishes a formal partnership in the future, we'll publish that decision openly.

— Cathy

Up next:

What is an epigenetic test? — the foundational explainer.

What my epigenetic test actually told me — what showed up when I ran mine.

The 14-Day Deep Reset →

References

1. Higgins-Chen AT, et al. (2022). A computational solution for bolstering reliability of epigenetic clocks. Nature Aging, 2, 644-661. Nature
2. Belsky DW, et al. (2022). DunedinPACE, a DNA methylation biomarker of the pace of aging. eLife, 11, e73420. PubMed
3. Wong CCY, et al. (2010). Methylation comparison between buccal cells and blood. Epigenetics, 5(6), 516-526. PubMed
4. Horvath S (2013). DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biology, 14(10), R115. PubMed
5. Lu AT, et al. (2019). DNA methylation GrimAge strongly predicts lifespan and healthspan. Aging, 11(2), 303-327. PubMed
6. Levine ME, et al. (2018). An epigenetic biomarker of aging for lifespan and healthspan. Aging, 10(4), 573-591. PubMed