The Longevity Registry

Diagnostics · 8 min read · Updated October 2026

Biological age tests compared: what they measure and what they don't

Your passport says one age, your body may say another. Several tests promise to read that second number. They don't all read the same thing.

By The Longevity Registry editorial team

In this article

Why measure biological age at all

Two fifty-year-olds can age at very different speeds. Biological age tests try to capture that difference in a single figure. Used well, they give you a starting point and a way to see whether changes in your life move the needle. Used badly, they become an expensive horoscope.

Epigenetic clocks: the current front-runner

Epigenetic clocks read DNA methylation — chemical marks on the genome that shift in predictable ways as we age. The first-generation clocks, such as Horvath's, estimated chronological age. Newer clocks were trained on health outcomes instead:

  • PhenoAge and GrimAge link methylation patterns to disease and mortality risk.
  • DunedinPACE estimates the current pace of aging — how many biological years you age per calendar year.

For tracking change over time, pace measures are often more useful than a single age figure. The limits: results vary between labs and algorithms, and small changes between two tests may sit within measurement noise.

Telomere length: popular, but blunt

Telomeres shorten as cells divide, which made them an early favorite. In practice, telomere length varies widely between people of the same age and predicts individual outcomes poorly. Most researchers now see it as a weaker marker than epigenetic clocks.

Organ age: a newer approach

Recent research uses blood proteins to estimate the age of individual organs — heart, brain, kidney and others. Early studies suggest that an organ aging faster than the rest predicts disease in that organ. It's promising, but still mostly a research tool.

Functional markers: the underrated option

Some of the strongest predictors of how long and how well you live are not exotic at all: VO2 max, grip strength, walking speed and balance. They are cheap to measure, respond to training, and tell you directly what to work on.

What it costs in the U.S.

A consumer epigenetic test typically costs a few hundred dollars. As part of a physician-led longevity workup, the price is usually bundled. Functional tests such as VO2 max testing often cost less than a methylation test and arguably tell you more you can act on.

How to use the result

Test once for a baseline, change one or two things that matter, then retest with the same lab and the same clock after six to twelve months. Never compare results across different tests.

Key takeaways

  • Epigenetic clocks are the most validated biological age tests today.
  • Pace-of-aging measures are well suited to tracking change.
  • Telomere length is a weak predictor for individuals.
  • Functional markers such as VO2 max and grip strength are cheap and actionable.

Questions

What is the most accurate biological age test?

Epigenetic clocks trained on health outcomes, such as GrimAge, PhenoAge and DunedinPACE, currently have the strongest evidence.

Can you lower your biological age?

Small studies suggest that lifestyle changes can shift epigenetic measures, but individual results vary and measurement noise is real. Focus on the habits, not the number.

How much does a biological age test cost?

Consumer epigenetic tests usually cost a few hundred dollars in the U.S. Prices within a clinic workup vary.

Is telomere testing worth it?

On its own, rarely. It varies widely between individuals and predicts personal outcomes less well than epigenetic clocks.

Sources

  1. Horvath S. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biology, 2013.
  2. Lu AT et al. DNA methylation GrimAge strongly predicts lifespan and healthspan. Aging, 2019.
  3. Belsky DW et al. DunedinPACE, a DNA methylation biomarker of the pace of aging. eLife, 2022.
  4. Oh HSH et al. Organ aging signatures in the plasma proteome track health and disease. Nature, 2023.

Editorial — not advertising. Reviews and articles are independent assessments by The Longevity Registry, based on published information — not medical advice.