3 Best Biological Age Tests in 2027

Choosing among the best biological age tests starts with a distinction: some kits estimate age from DNA methylation, while others explore inherited genetic traits linked to aging. I rank the TruAge Complete Collection first for the breadth of its epigenetic reports, including biological age, telomeres, and immune measures. Aeternum is my more straightforward saliva-based pick for people who want a methylation estimate without a finger-prick, while SelfDecode suits buyers interested in genetic tendencies and a sizable set of wellness recommendations rather than a direct methylation age estimate.

For listenersOffer from Amazon

Turn your wind-down time into listening time

• Thousands of audiobooks, podcasts and originals
• Listen on your phone, tablet or Echo — also offline
• Cancel anytime

Try Audible free →Free trial for new members

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.Hide

The central tradeoff is between what a test measures and how much effort its sample collection asks of you. TruAge and Aeternum both use DNA methylation, but TruAge requires a blood spot and returns several aging-related metrics; Aeternum uses saliva and provides a digital report with lifestyle recommendations. SelfDecode avoids blood and saliva collection devices with a cheek swab, yet its focus is genetic associations—not the same kind of age estimate offered by a methylation test. I treat every result as a wellness signal, not a diagnosis or a stand-alone measure of health.

Key Takeaways

• TruAge Complete Collection is my pick for broader epigenetic reporting, with biological age, telomere, immune, and other measures in one collection.
• Aeternum is the clearest fit if you want DNA methylation analysis but prefer at-home saliva collection over a fingertip blood spot.
• SelfDecode explores genetic variants associated with aging and offers 50 recommendations; it is not a direct substitute for a DNA methylation age estimate.
• The listed turnaround is a few weeks for Aeternum and 2–3 weeks after sample receipt for TruAge; SelfDecode’s supplied details do not state a timeframe.
• None of these kits is described as a diagnostic test, so I would use results as educational context and discuss health concerns with a clinician.

Our Top Best Biological Age Tests Picks

TruAge Complete Collection Epigenetic Age Test		Best Overall for Broad Epigenetic Reports	Test type: Epigenetic biological age test	Sample: Fingertip blood spot	Collection: At-home blood spot card	VIEW LATEST PRICE	See Our Full Breakdown
Aeternum DNA Biological Age Test Kit		Best for Saliva-Based Methylation Testing	Test method: DNA methylation analysis	Sample type: Saliva	Collection: At home	VIEW LATEST PRICE	See Our Full Breakdown
SelfDecode Healthy Aging and Longevity DNA Test		Best for Genetic Aging Insights and Recommendations	Sample collection: At-home cheek swab	Return shipping: Prepaid mailer included	Report: Personalized online report with 50 recommendations	VIEW LATEST PRICE	See Our Full Breakdown

More Details on Our Top Picks

1. TruAge Complete Collection Epigenetic Age Test

   

   Best Overall for Broad Epigenetic Reports

   View Latest Price

   I rank TruAge Complete Collection first because it offers the broadest stated set of aging-related measures among these three tests. Its fingertip blood spot is analyzed for DNA methylation, with reports covering biological age, telomere length, Dunedin PACE, immune cell ratios, and other immune-related age metrics. It also includes a report on weight-loss response to caloric restriction. That range gives a curious buyer more context than a single age estimate, though it also means the report may require more effort to interpret.

   The main compromise is the blood-spot collection. Compared with Aeternum’s saliva device or SelfDecode’s cheek swab, TruAge asks the buyer to collect a fingertip blood sample on a card. That may be a worthwhile trade for someone seeking more reported metrics, but it is a poor match for anyone uncomfortable with lancets or blood collection. The stated result window is 2–3 weeks after the sample is received, so the clock does not necessarily begin on the day the kit is mailed.

   TruAge is the strongest match here for someone who wants an epigenetic snapshot with several supporting measures, rather than only genetic tendencies or a single methylation estimate. Aeternum is easier on the sample-collection front and presents a simpler saliva-based route, while SelfDecode supplies more recommendations but focuses on genetic associations. I would not choose TruAge expecting a clinical diagnosis or a definitive measure of future health. Its product description says no third-party data sharing and HIPAA compliance, but the metrics remain wellness information to interpret cautiously.

   Pros:

   • Reports biological age alongside telomere and immune-related measures.
   • Includes Dunedin PACE, immune cell ratios, and weight-loss response reporting.
   • At-home blood-spot collection avoids an in-person lab visit.
   • Product description states no third-party data sharing and HIPAA compliance.

   Cons:

   • Requires a fingertip blood sample, unlike the saliva and cheek-swab alternatives.
   • Results arrive 2–3 weeks after the lab receives the sample.
   • The range of metrics may take more effort to interpret than a focused age report.

   Best for: People who want several DNA-methylation-related aging reports and are comfortable collecting a fingertip blood spot at home.

   Not ideal for: People who avoid blood collection, want the simplest possible sample process, or expect a clinical diagnosis from a wellness test.

   • Test type:Epigenetic biological age test
   • Sample:Fingertip blood spot
   • Collection:At-home blood spot card
   • Turnaround:2–3 weeks after sample receipt
   • Age-related reports:Biological age, telomere length, Dunedin PACE, immune-related age metrics, immune cell ratios
   • Additional report:Weight-loss response to caloric restriction
   • Data sharing:No third-party data sharing, according to the product description
   • Compliance:HIPAA compliant, according to the product description
   Our verdict

   “I recommend TruAge for buyers who prioritize a broad epigenetic report and accept a blood spot as the tradeoff.”

   → See it on Amazon →

2. Aeternum DNA Biological Age Test Kit

   

   Best for Saliva-Based Methylation Testing

   View Latest Price

   Aeternum DNA Biological Age Test Kit is my pick for buyers who want a methylation-based biological-age estimate but would rather not collect blood. It uses an at-home saliva sample, then analyzes DNA methylation markers and delivers a digital report with lifestyle recommendations. That puts it closer to a direct biological-age test than SelfDecode’s genetic-association report, while keeping the collection process less demanding than TruAge’s fingertip blood card.

   Its appeal is the balance between method and convenience. The kit includes a saliva collection device, instructions, and a prepaid return mailer, and results are expected in a few weeks. Compared with TruAge, Aeternum gives up the listed breadth of telomere, immune, and other age-related reports. In return, it avoids a blood spot and offers a more focused route for someone who wants a methylation result with lifestyle context. The supplied description does not list the specific methylation markers or provide extensive detail about how recommendations are generated, so I would not assume that the report has the same breadth as TruAge’s.

   Aeternum can also be retaken to track changes over time, which may appeal to people who want to compare results as their routines change. Still, repeat testing is not the same as proof that a routine caused a change; biological-age estimates can have limits, and the product is not described as a medical diagnosis. I place it second because it matches the central biological-age question more directly than SelfDecode and is easier to collect than TruAge, but its stated report is less extensive than the top pick’s.

   Pros:

   • Uses DNA methylation analysis to estimate biological age.
   • At-home saliva collection avoids a fingertip blood sample.
   • Includes instructions and a prepaid return mailer.
   • Digital report includes lifestyle recommendations and can support repeat tracking.

   Cons:

   • Results are expected in a few weeks rather than immediately.
   • The supplied description does not name the specific methylation markers or list a broad set of secondary metrics.
   • Results and recommendations are not described as a medical diagnosis.

   Best for: Buyers seeking a DNA methylation-based age estimate who prefer saliva collection and want lifestyle recommendations in a digital report.

   Not ideal for: People who want the broadest set of named aging metrics, need results quickly, or expect a diagnostic assessment.

   • Test method:DNA methylation analysis
   • Sample type:Saliva
   • Collection:At home
   • Laboratory:CLIA-certified laboratories
   • Results:Digital report with lifestyle recommendations
   • Turnaround:A few weeks
   • Included:Saliva collection device, instructions, prepaid return mailer
   • Repeat testing:Can be retaken to track changes over time
   Our verdict

   “I would choose Aeternum for a focused methylation-based age estimate when saliva collection matters more than a wider set of reports.”

   → See it on Amazon →

3. SelfDecode Healthy Aging and Longevity DNA Test

   

   Best for Genetic Aging Insights and Recommendations

   View Latest Price

   SelfDecode Healthy Aging and Longevity DNA Test is the easiest collection option in this lineup: it uses an at-home cheek swab, with a prepaid return mailer and an online personalized report. Its report references genes such as FOXO3, SIRT1, KLOTHO, and TERT and supplies 50 recommendations. That makes it a good fit for people interested in inherited traits associated with healthy aging and cellular aging markers, especially if they prefer to avoid both saliva collection and a blood spot.

   The important distinction is that genetic association is not the same as an epigenetic age estimate. Aeternum and TruAge analyze DNA methylation markers to estimate biological age; SelfDecode looks at genetic variants connected with aging. Those findings may provide wellness context, but they do not directly answer the same question about a current methylation-based age measure. I place SelfDecode third in a roundup focused specifically on biological age tests for that reason—not because a genetic report has no value, but because its primary method differs from the two methylation options.

   The 50 recommendations may appeal to buyers who want a personalized list to explore, and the product description says data is encrypted, deletable at any time, and handled in a way aligned with HIPAA and GDPR. At the same time, a large recommendation set can be more information than some buyers want, and recommendations based on genetic associations should not be read as personalized medical instructions. The description identifies a CLIA-certified lab and says the report is for educational and wellness purposes, not diagnosis or treatment. I would choose it for genetic aging context and a needle-free swab, not as a substitute for methylation testing.

   Pros:

   • Uses a cheek swab, so collection requires neither saliva collection nor a fingertip blood spot.
   • Includes a prepaid return mailer.
   • Provides an online personalized report with 50 recommendations.
   • Product details describe encrypted data and the option to delete it anytime.

   Cons:

   • Focuses on genetic associations rather than a direct DNA methylation age estimate.
   • Recommendations are based on genetic associations and should not be treated as medical guidance.
   • Not intended to diagnose or treat disease.

   Best for: People interested in genetic variants associated with healthy aging who want a simple cheek swab and a report with many wellness recommendations.

   Not ideal for: Buyers whose main goal is a direct DNA methylation-based biological-age estimate or a clinical diagnosis.

   • Sample collection:At-home cheek swab
   • Return shipping:Prepaid mailer included
   • Report:Personalized online report with 50 recommendations
   • Genes referenced:FOXO3, SIRT1, KLOTHO, TERT
   • Lab processing:CLIA-certified lab
   • Data privacy:Encrypted; HIPAA/GDPR-aligned; deletable anytime, according to the product description
   • Intended use:Educational and wellness purposes
   • Method focus:Genetic variants associated with healthy aging and cellular aging markers
   Our verdict

   “I recommend SelfDecode for buyers who want genetic aging insights and recommendations, not for those seeking a direct methylation-based age estimate.”

   → See it on Amazon →

How We Picked

I compared these kits by asking what a buyer gets from the result, how the sample is collected, and whether the method matches the promise of a biological age test. That distinction shapes the ranking. DNA methylation tests are the closest match here to a direct biological-age estimate because Aeternum and TruAge analyze methylation markers. SelfDecode examines genetic variants associated with healthy aging and cellular aging markers, so I give it a separate role rather than treating its genetic report as interchangeable with an epigenetic age estimate.

Report usefulness and breadth came next. TruAge leads because its listed output includes biological age plus telomere, immune-related, and other measures. Aeternum offers methylation-based age context and lifestyle recommendations in a simpler report. SelfDecode stands out for the number of recommendations and for discussing genes such as FOXO3, SIRT1, KLOTHO, and TERT, but recommendations based on genetic associations do not make its result a direct reading of how quickly someone is aging.

I also weighed collection burden and practical details. A cheek swab is the least demanding collection method in this group, saliva avoids a needle but still requires a sample device, and a fingertip blood spot asks for more hands-on effort. Prepaid return mailers are listed for all three, while turnaround details are supplied for Aeternum and TruAge but not SelfDecode. I did not treat a longer report or a certification claim as proof that a test can diagnose disease. Each kit is presented for educational or wellness use, and biological-age estimates should be interpreted with that limitation in mind.

The order reflects fit for the biological-age question, not a claim that one kit is right for everyone. TruAge is first for the broadest stated epigenetic picture; Aeternum follows for a more convenient saliva collection and a focused methylation report; SelfDecode is third because its genetic approach answers a related but different question. A buyer who values a non-blood sample or genetic recommendations may reasonably choose a lower-ranked option for a better personal fit.

Factors to Consider When Choosing Best Biological Age Tests

I would choose a biological age test by starting with the method, then matching that method to the sample I am willing to collect and the kind of report I want to read. The word “age” can describe different outputs here, so checking the test method is more useful than comparing kit names alone.

Methylation age versus genetic aging insights

DNA methylation analysis is the shared basis of Aeternum and TruAge. Both are presented as ways to estimate biological age from methylation markers, though TruAge lists more named report categories and Aeternum offers a focused digital report with lifestyle recommendations. SelfDecode instead examines genetic variants associated with aging. That can help someone explore inherited tendencies, but it is not the same kind of current epigenetic age estimate.

If my main question is “What does this test estimate about my biological age now?”, I would start with the two methylation kits. If my question is closer to “What genetic traits are linked with healthy aging, and what wellness recommendations are offered?”, SelfDecode may fit better. I would avoid treating any of these outputs as a diagnosis or as a prediction that settles how I will age.

Choose a sample method you can complete comfortably

The sample is a practical differentiator, not a small detail. SelfDecode uses a cheek swab, Aeternum uses saliva, and TruAge requires a fingertip blood spot. A cheek swab may be the simplest option for someone who dislikes needles and does not want to manage a blood spot. Saliva also avoids blood collection, though the buyer needs to use the supplied collection device correctly. TruAge’s blood card is the least suitable choice for someone uncomfortable with collecting a small blood sample, even if its report breadth is appealing.

I would also check the kit instructions before mailing a sample and follow the collection and return steps closely. A sample that is not collected or shipped as directed can complicate the process. All three descriptions list a prepaid return mailer, which removes the need to arrange return postage separately, but only TruAge and Aeternum provide a turnaround estimate in the supplied details.

Match report depth to the question you want answered

TruAge has the broadest listed report set, including biological age, telomere length, Dunedin PACE, immune-related age metrics, immune cell ratios, and a weight-loss response report. That may be valuable to a buyer who wants several angles in one report, but more metrics can also mean more terms to interpret. Aeternum is a more focused methylation option, with biological-age context and lifestyle recommendations. SelfDecode offers a different form of depth: 50 recommendations tied to a genetic report rather than the broad methylation output described for TruAge.

I would not assume that more report items automatically mean a more useful result. Before choosing, ask whether you want one main age estimate, several adjacent biological measures, or a list of genetic insights and suggested wellness actions. The best match is the report whose scope answers your actual question without encouraging you to overread uncertain findings.

Treat retesting and turnaround as separate decisions

Aeternum says the test can be retaken to track changes, and TruAge describes its reports as intended to help track changes over time. Repeating a test may provide another snapshot, but a before-and-after difference does not by itself prove that a particular habit caused the result. Biological-age estimates are not a replacement for routine clinical measures, and the product descriptions do not establish that a score change predicts a health outcome.

For timing, Aeternum gives an expectation of a few weeks, while TruAge lists 2–3 weeks after sample receipt. That distinction matters: shipping time comes before a lab receives the sample. The supplied SelfDecode details do not give a result timeframe, so I would check the current kit information if timing is a deciding factor rather than assume it matches another product.

Read privacy and medical-use statements closely

DNA data can feel more personal than many other wellness measurements, so I would review each provider’s current privacy terms before sending a sample. SelfDecode’s supplied description says data is encrypted, deletable anytime, and HIPAA/GDPR-aligned. TruAge’s description says it does not share data with third parties and is HIPAA compliant. Those are product-description claims; I would verify the provider’s detailed policies to understand retention, deletion, and any limits on those statements.

All three options should be approached as educational or wellness tools, not diagnostic services. SelfDecode explicitly says it is not intended to diagnose or treat disease, and the Aeternum description says its age estimates and recommendations are not a medical diagnosis. If a result raises a concern, I would bring the report to a qualified healthcare professional rather than make treatment decisions from a consumer test alone.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a biological age test and a genetic aging report?

A biological age test in this lineup uses DNA methylation markers to estimate age-related patterns, as Aeternum and TruAge do. SelfDecode examines genetic variants associated with healthy aging and cellular aging markers. Genetic traits may offer useful wellness context, but they do not provide the same kind of methylation-based biological-age estimate. I would choose based on which question I want answered rather than treating the methods as interchangeable.

Which of these tests offers the broadest set of aging metrics?

TruAge lists the broadest set of reports in the product details: biological age, telomere length, Dunedin PACE, immune-related age metrics, immune cell ratios, and weight-loss response to caloric restriction. Aeternum is described more simply as a methylation-based biological-age report with lifestyle recommendations. SelfDecode has 50 recommendations, but its focus is genetic associations rather than a broad set of epigenetic age measures.

Which biological age test avoids a blood sample?

Both Aeternum and SelfDecode avoid a fingertip blood spot: Aeternum uses saliva, and SelfDecode uses a cheek swab. The choice between them depends on the result you want. Aeternum is the methylation-based age option, while SelfDecode provides genetic aging insights and recommendations. TruAge is the one that requires a fingertip blood spot for its broader epigenetic report.

How long do results take?

The supplied Aeternum details say results are expected in a few weeks. TruAge lists a 2–3 week turnaround after the sample is received by the lab, so shipping time is additional. The SelfDecode details provided here do not specify a result timeframe. I would check current instructions and processing information before ordering if a particular date matters.

Can I use a biological age result to diagnose a health condition?

No. These products are presented for wellness or educational use, and their reports should not replace medical evaluation. SelfDecode explicitly says its test is not intended to diagnose or treat disease; Aeternum’s description also says its estimates and recommendations are not a medical diagnosis. If a result worries you or connects to symptoms, I would discuss it with a healthcare professional rather than make treatment decisions from the report alone.

Conclusion

My recommendation depends on which tradeoff matters most. Choose TruAge Complete Collection if you want the widest listed set of epigenetic aging measures and are comfortable collecting a fingertip blood spot. Pick Aeternum if your priority is a methylation-based biological-age estimate with saliva collection and a focused digital report. Go with SelfDecode if you want an easy cheek swab, genetic aging context, and a larger set of wellness recommendations—and understand that this is not the same as a direct methylation age test.

For any of the three, I would read the result as one limited piece of wellness information, not a verdict on my health or future. The best fit is the test whose method, sample, and report scope match the question I actually want to explore.