Our Scoring Methodology

Sensitivity and specificity compared to laboratory reference methods. Based on published peer-reviewed studies, ISO 15197:2013 certification data, and manufacturer-published clinical validation reports. This is the most heavily weighted criterion because a test that gives wrong results is worse than no test at all.

How easy is the test to perform correctly at home? We evaluate sample collection method (urine, finger-prick, swab), instruction clarity, result readability (digital vs line), and the likelihood of user error. A test that is difficult to use correctly will have lower real-world accuracy than its clinical validation suggests.

Price-to-performance ratio. We consider the cost per test, the cost of ongoing supplies (strips, lancets), and whether the test's accuracy justifies its price compared to alternatives. A premium-priced test must demonstrate meaningfully superior performance to score well on value.

Time from sample collection to result. For rapid tests, this is the stated result time. For lab-based services, this is the turnaround time from sample receipt to result delivery. Faster results are weighted positively, especially for time-sensitive conditions.

How easy is the test to obtain? We consider availability in major European markets, online availability, shipping times, and whether a prescription is required. Tests that are difficult to obtain score lower, even if technically excellent.

Quality of user support resources: instruction quality, customer helpline, companion app, and whether physician consultation is included with results. For complex tests (STI panels, thyroid), strong support resources are particularly important.