
Genetic testing has become a game-changer in healthcare, providing health professionals with the tools to offer truly personalized care. However, not all genetic testing providers are equal, and choosing the right one can be challenging. Health professionals need a solution that not only delivers accurate and actionable data but also integrates seamlessly into their practice. In this article, we’ll compare 3×4 Genetics vs 23andMe, two well-known genetic testing companies, to help you determine which one better meets the needs of health practitioners.
About the 3×4 Genetics vs 23andMe
When it comes to genetic testing, 3×4 Genetics and 23andMe are two companies that often come up in conversations. Both provide insights into genetic data, but their approaches, target audiences, and focus areas differ significantly, especially when it comes to serving health practitioners.
About 3×4 Genetics
The 3×4 Genetics testing process involves a simple cheek swab sent to their labs for analysis. Results are presented in the Genetic Blueprint Report which highlights 36 metabolic pathways, covering areas like inflammation, detoxification, and hormonal balance. The goal is to give practitioners the tools to guide clients in improving their health with targeted dietary, lifestyle, and supplement strategies.
While 3×4 Genetics is designed for professionals, some of its recommendations remain broad, which might limit its utility for practitioners working with complex cases or highly personalized approaches. Additionally, the service is currently available only in the United States, which could be a drawback for practitioners in other countries.
About 23andMe
23andMe is one of the most recognizable names in consumer genetic testing, offering reports on ancestry, traits, and health-related markers. Unlike 3×4 Genetics, 23andMe is designed primarily for direct-to-consumer use rather than professional healthcare settings.
Their tests provide insights into genetic predispositions for certain conditions, carrier status, and wellness traits. While the information can be valuable, it often lacks the depth and clinical focus required by health practitioners looking for actionable insights to guide their clients’ health journeys.
Another limitation is that 23andMe does not provide personalized recommendations, making it less practical for practitioners aiming to create tailored health plans. That said, its competitive pricing and user-friendly reports have made it a popular choice for individuals looking for a basic introduction to their genetic makeup.
3×4 Genetics vs 23andMe: Comparing DNA Tests and Reports
3×4 Genetics and 23andMe services vary in aspects such as genetic markers analyzed, report design, and the level of personalization offered. Below, we’ll compare these options based on key factors like turnaround time, the range of genetic information provided, and how each test is structured to serve the needs of health professionals.
DNA tests
Turnaround time is an important factor for practitioners, as it affects how quickly they can provide clients with actionable insights. 3×4 Genetics delivers results in about 3–4 weeks, which allows practitioners to start working with clients relatively quickly. Similarly, 23andMe takes 3–5 weeks, though the timing can fluctuate depending on demand.
The sample collection methods are also different. 3×4 Genetics uses a cheek swab, which is quick and simple for clients to complete, whether at home or in a clinic. In comparison, 23andMe requires a saliva sample, which some clients may find less convenient, especially if they struggle to produce enough saliva. For practitioners, the cheek swab option might be easier to manage in a busy practice setting.
Genetic Markers and Pathways Analyzed
The type of genetic information provided is another key difference between 3×4 Genetics and 23andMe.
3×4 Genetics focuses on 36 metabolic pathways, with a strong emphasis on health-related insights like inflammation, detoxification, and energy metabolism. However, it analyzes a limited number of genes and does not incorporate Polygenic Risk Scoring (PRS), which assesses the combined effect of multiple genetic variants on health risks. This may limit its ability to provide a comprehensive and accurate picture of an individual’s genetic predispositions.
By contrast, 23andMe offers a broader range of data, covering health predispositions, ancestry, and some wellness traits. However, its focus on general genetic information and lack of personalized recommendations may not align as closely with the needs of health professionals.
Report Design and User-Friendliness
The way the results are presented can make a big difference in how useful they are for practitioners. 3×4 Genetics organizes its reports with a focus on professional use, using color-coded pathways to highlight areas of higher or lower impact. The report also includes visuals that categorize results into areas like energy, nutrients, and cellular health, making it easier to explain findings to clients.
23andMe takes a more consumer-focused approach, with reports designed to be easy to understand but less tailored for health professionals. While this can make the data accessible, the reports lack the depth practitioners may need for developing detailed client plans.
For practitioners, the structured layout of the 3×4 Genetics report may make it a better fit for clinical settings. However, the recommendations remain fairly general, as they only address the top pathways, leaving out other relevant genetic information that could be important for a client’s care.
Personalization of Insights
When it comes to tailoring recommendations to individual genetic profiles, both 3×4 Genetics and 23andMe have their limitations.
3×4 Genetics focuses on identifying the top pathways most relevant to a client’s health and providing recommendations for diet, lifestyle, and supplements based on these findings. While this targeted approach offers a solid starting point, it falls short of delivering fully personalized guidance. Many other pathways with potential significance are not explored in depth, which can leave practitioners with an incomplete picture of their clients’ genetic needs.
23andMe, on the other hand, provides a broad overview of genetic traits, health predispositions, and ancestry insights. However, the lack of actionable recommendations tied to specific health goals makes it less useful for practitioners looking to create tailored wellness plans. While the information is interesting for clients, its application in a clinical or professional health setting is limited.
Both services require practitioners to supplement the reports with their own expertise to build truly personalized plans, which can be time-intensive.
Limitations and Advantages for Health Practitioners.
For health practitioners, choosing between 3×4 Genetics vs 23andMe depends on the specific needs of their practice and the level of detail they require from genetic testing reports. Each option has both benefits and drawbacks.
One limitation of 3×4 Genetics is its narrow focus when providing recommendations, which means health practitioners must invest significant effort to create a truly personalized plan for their clients. Additionally, the guidance offered is broad and lacks deep customization to an individual’s unique genetic profile, making it less effective for addressing specific health concerns.
23andMe presents a different set of challenges. Its consumer-focused design provides a wider range of genetic information but also lacks the actionable insights that practitioners need to develop personalized health plans. The absence of targeted recommendations tied to metabolic pathways or clinical outcomes reduces its utility in a professional health setting.
Despite these limitations, 3×4 Genetics can be advantageous for practitioners who want a more structured, health-focused approach, as its reports are designed to align with clinical goals. Meanwhile, 23andMe’s comprehensive genetic data may appeal to those seeking broader information to supplement other tools in their practice.
However, neither solution offers the depth or precision required for truly personalized and actionable care, which may prompt practitioners to explore alternatives that better address these needs. Both 23andMe and 3×4 Genetics require practitioners to spend a significant amount of time manually interpreting genetic data and crafting personalized health plans for their clients.
Because neither company provides highly customized recommendations, practitioners must analyze the reports themselves, cross-reference findings with additional research, and then tailor diet, lifestyle, and supplement recommendations to each client. This process can be time-consuming and inefficient, making it difficult to scale personalized care.
The lack of Polygenic Risk Scoring in both services means they do not fully assess genetic risk based on multiple interacting variants, which can be crucial for understanding complex health conditions.
While both services have their strengths, neither fully meets the needs of health practitioners seeking in-depth, personalized, and actionable genetic insights. Practitioners looking for a more comprehensive solution might benefit from exploring alternatives that offer greater precision and customization.
3×4 Genetics vs 23andMe Pricing
Understanding the cost structure is an important consideration for health practitioners. Pricing affects not only the accessibility of these services for clients but also how seamlessly they can be integrated into a practitioner’s offerings. Below, we break down the costs associated with 3×4 Genetics and 23andMe, highlighting any additional fees that may apply.
Cost of 3×4 Genetics
The 3×4 Genetics Test and Blueprint Report is priced at $299. This includes the test kit, analysis, and a report that focuses on health and wellness pathways. The cost is positioned for use by licensed health practitioners, allowing them to integrate the results into client care plans.
Cost of 23andMe
23andMe offers a straightforward pricing model, which is explained below:
- Ancestry Service ($119)
- Health + Ancestry Service ($199)
- 23andMe+ Premium ($268 then $69/year)
- 23andMe+ Total Health ($999 then $499/year)
Alternatives to 3×4 Genetics and 23andMe
For health professionals looking for more robust tools than what 3×4 Genetics and 23andMe offer, SelfDecode is an alternative designed specifically with practitioners in mind. Unlike consumer-focused platforms, SelfDecode delivers comprehensive genetic analysis, actionable insights, and practitioner-centric features that simplify and enhance the process of personalized health care.
SelfDecode stands out by offering one of the most advanced genetic testing services on the market. Its reports go beyond simple genetic insights to provide highly personalized, actionable recommendations based on a client’s unique genetic profile. With Polygenic Risk Scoring (PRS), SelfDecode evaluates how multiple genetic variants interact to influence health risks, offering a more complete picture of a client’s potential health outcomes.
Key features and benefits for health professionals
- Comprehensive Genetic Analysis: SelfDecode analyzes over 200 million genetic variants, providing a much deeper understanding of a client’s genetic profile compared to other providers. This level of detail allows practitioners to address a wide range of health concerns, from chronic conditions to preventative care.
- Practitioner Dashboard: The intuitive practitioner dashboard makes it easy to manage client data, generate reports, and track progress over time. This feature is especially beneficial for those managing multiple clients or integrating genetic insights into larger health programs.
- 650+ Health Reports: SelfDecode offers an extensive library of health reports, covering areas like nutrition, mental health, chronic diseases, and more. These reports are designed to be both practitioner- and client-friendly, with clear explanations and actionable recommendations that facilitate meaningful interventions.
- Personalized Health Recommendations: Unlike the generalized advice provided by 3×4 Genetics or 23andMe, SelfDecode’s recommendations are tailored to each client’s specific genetic makeup, lab results, lifestyle factors, and health goals. This ensures a more precise approach to care that resonates with individual needs.
- Seamless Integration with Other Health Data: SelfDecode allows practitioners to incorporate additional health data, such as lab results and lifestyle habits, creating a comprehensive view of a client’s health that goes beyond genetic testing alone.
Conclusion
When comparing 3×4 Genetics vs 23andMe, it’s clear that both offer valuable insights into genetics, but they cater to different audiences and come with limitations for health practitioners.
3×4 Genetics provides a health-focused approach with simplified recommendations, but its narrow focus and lack of deep personalization may require practitioners to do extra work to create tailored plans for clients.
Additionally, the report analyzes a limited number of genetic markers and does not include Polygenic Risk Scoring (PRS), which means it lacks the ability to assess complex health risks influenced by multiple genetic variants. This limited depth can make it difficult for practitioners to gain a truly comprehensive view of a client’s health.
Meanwhile, 23andMe targets consumers with ancestry and general health insights, but its reports lack the depth and specificity that practitioners need for actionable interventions. While it provides a broad genetic overview, it does not prioritize health-related insights in a way that is structured for professional use.
For health professionals, the ideal provider should offer comprehensive, personalized insights, actionable recommendations, and tools that simplify your workflow while delivering maximum value to your clients.
If you’re looking for a solution tailored specifically for health practitioners, SelfDecode is an excellent alternative. With its advanced genetic analysis, practitioner dashboard, and personalized health reports, SelfDecode empowers you to deliver the kind of precision care your clients deserve.