Best Direct-to-Consumer Lab Testing Platforms for Clinical Laboratories in 2026

For an established clinical laboratory, choosing a direct-to-consumer testing platform is not the same as choosing an ecommerce platform or patient portal.

The system may need to connect consumer test discovery, catalog management, pricing, ordering, payment, patient identity, provider authorization, scheduling, specimen collection, LIS/LIMS workflows, results delivery, customer support, and repeat engagement.

The important question therefore is not simply:

Which DTC laboratory platform has the most features?

It is:

Which platform best matches the operating model your laboratory wants to build?

Several vendors now approach that problem from materially different starting points.

Luminate Health has deep roots in laboratory patient and provider engagement and extends those capabilities into direct-to-consumer testing. TestDirectly, developed by LigoLab, emphasizes digital laboratory workflow, collection, specimen processing, and LIS connectivity. Lifepoint Informatics offers a broader laboratory and healthcare integration stack with a dedicated DTC software module. Solia Direct is built around a laboratory-owned consumer operating layer spanning commerce, collection, workflows, results, longitudinal engagement, and administration.

There is no universal winner.

A laboratory prioritizing longitudinal patient engagement may make a different decision from one prioritizing specimen workflow, while a laboratory attempting to build a modern consumer business under its own brand may evaluate the category differently again.

The short version

For laboratories building a DTC program in 2026, four platforms deserve consideration for different reasons:

Solia Direct

Best aligned with laboratories that want a broader consumer operating layer around their existing laboratory infrastructure.

Solia Direct publicly positions seven connected capability areas: consumer commerce, scheduling and collection, patient accounts, results and longitudinal health, workflow orchestration, intelligence, and admin/operations. Its architecture is explicitly designed to sit above existing LIS/LIMS, scheduling, collection, payment, and clinical systems rather than replace them.

Luminate Health

Strongest public positioning around patient engagement, longitudinal results, provider engagement, and laboratory data.

Luminate combines patient-facing results and education with longitudinal records, provider tools, DTC ordering, catalog management, phlebotomy workflows, FHIR APIs, EMPI, scheduling, billing, identity verification, and SSO integrations.

TestDirectly / LigoLab

Strongest fit for laboratories prioritizing collection and specimen workflow automation closely tied to laboratory operations.

TestDirectly publicly emphasizes self-registration, scheduling, multiple collection workflows, specimen tracking, automated result delivery, insurance information, digital requisitions, LIS connectivity, and integration with laboratory revenue-cycle systems.

Lifepoint Informatics

Strong fit for laboratories that want DTC capabilities inside a broader healthcare integration and laboratory software ecosystem.

Lifepoint's DTC module publicly includes branded test search, patient portal access, order history, requisitions, payment-gateway connectivity, automated results notification, and LIS/EMR interfaces.

The correct shortlist depends on what the laboratory actually wants to own and operate.

What should a clinical laboratory look for in a DTC platform?

The most important mistake to avoid is evaluating the platform only from the patient's perspective.

A polished storefront matters.

But established laboratories also need to know what happens after checkout.

A serious evaluation should cover at least nine areas.

1. Consumer commerce

Can the laboratory control:

• tests and panels;
• bundles;
• pricing;
• promotions;
• geographic availability;
• collection eligibility;
• checkout;
• payment state;
• recurring or membership models where relevant?

A laboratory test should ideally be represented as more than a generic retail SKU. The consumer product eventually has to resolve into laboratory testing, specimen requirements, collection, workflow, and an official result.

2. Laboratory branding and customer ownership

Can the laboratory operate under:

• its own brand;
• its own domain;
• its own catalog;
• its own pricing;
• its own consumer relationship?

White-labeling can mean anything from changing a logo to operating a deeply configurable branded product.

Those are not equivalent.

3. Ordering and authorization

The platform should support the laboratory's actual regulatory and clinical ordering model.

That may involve:

• direct access where permitted;
• provider authorization;
• external ordering-provider networks;
• location-specific eligibility;
• test-specific workflows.

The vendor should be able to explain exactly where this logic lives and how it changes when requirements vary.

4. Collection

Evaluate whether the platform can support the collection models your laboratory actually uses:

• patient service centers;
• mobile phlebotomy;
• partner locations;
• workplace collection;
• home collection;
• specimen-kit workflows;
• hybrid models.

Scheduling alone is not the same as collection orchestration.

The platform should be able to connect the chosen collection method to the order, patient, specimen, and downstream laboratory workflow.

5. LIS/LIMS interoperability

For an established laboratory, this is one of the most important procurement questions.

Determine:

• how orders enter the laboratory;
• how patient identity is matched;
• how requisitions are generated;
• how specimen status moves between systems;
• how results return;
• which system remains authoritative;
• whether interfaces use HL7, FHIR, APIs, files, or custom adapters;
• how exceptions and interface failures are handled.

A DTC platform that requires laboratory personnel to manually re-enter consumer orders is not solving the core operational problem.

6. Workflow orchestration

Ask the vendor to demonstrate more than the happy path.

A real DTC workflow includes states such as:

ordered → authorization pending → authorized → scheduled → collected → accessioned → processing → partial result → released

It may also need to handle:

• failed payments;
• no-shows;
• rejected specimens;
• recollections;
• delayed results;
• amended results;
• refunds;
• duplicate patients;
• critical-value workflows.

The platform should make clear which system and team owns each state.

7. Results and patient engagement

At minimum, consumers need secure access to authoritative laboratory results.

More sophisticated platforms can also support:

• understandable result presentation;
• historical results;
• longitudinal trends;
• educational information;
• notifications;
• repeat testing;
• programs;
• provider engagement;
• health summaries.

This is an area where platform philosophies differ substantially.

8. Administration and operations

The laboratory's internal staff may need to manage:

• catalog;
• pricing;
• availability;
• orders;
• appointments;
• provider authorization;
• collections;
• payment status;
• refunds;
• exceptions;
• results;
• user permissions;
• customer support;
• analytics.

A sophisticated consumer experience built on top of spreadsheets and manual back-office work is unlikely to scale efficiently.

9. Long-term ownership and flexibility

Finally, ask what happens after launch.

Can the laboratory change:

• pricing;
• catalog;
• workflows;
• collection models;
• geography;
• branding;
• integrations;
• business models;

without commissioning a redevelopment project each time?

DTC testing is an operating channel, not a one-time website launch.

Direct-to-consumer laboratory platforms compared

The following comparison reflects publicly documented capabilities and positioning rather than private product demonstrations or negotiated implementation scopes.

Public product information does not disclose every deployment-specific feature. A blank or less-emphasized capability in public marketing should not automatically be interpreted as absent from the product.

1. Solia Direct

Best fit: laboratories that want to operate a complete consumer business around their existing lab

Solia Direct is designed around a simple architectural idea:

the laboratory remains the clinical source of truth, while a separate consumer operating layer manages the customer experience around it.

Its public platform architecture separates:

This makes Solia Direct particularly relevant for an established laboratory that already has the testing infrastructure and wants to add a modern commercial layer without attempting to replace its LIS/LIMS.

Core strengths

Solia Direct publicly groups the platform into seven capability areas:

• Consumer Commerce
• Scheduling & Collection
• Patient Accounts
• Results & Longitudinal Health
• Workflow Orchestration
• Intelligence
• Admin & Operations

Its commerce layer is specifically modeled around laboratory products, with test and panel structures, biomarkers, pricing, promotions, geographic availability, collection eligibility, checkout, and payment status.

The platform also supports different commercial approaches, including à-la-carte testing, comprehensive programs, recurring testing, memberships, and hybrid configurations.

Where it differs

The most important distinction is that Solia Direct does not position DTC commerce as a separate module sitting beside a traditional patient portal.

Commerce, collection, identity, workflow, results, longitudinal engagement, and administration are intended to operate as one consumer layer.

That can be valuable for laboratories that want the DTC program itself to become a significant owned business rather than simply another channel for ordering tests.

Trade-off

Solia Direct is a newer entrant than several vendors in this comparison.

Its public site currently emphasizes the platform architecture and the Solia Health live consumer reference implementation, whereas established competitors such as Luminate and LigoLab publicly cite broader histories of production use and laboratory deployments. Buyers should distinguish product architecture and fit from deployment history and enterprise proof when evaluating vendors.

Strongest fit when

Choose Solia Direct for serious evaluation when the laboratory wants:

• a fully branded DTC business;
• laboratory-specific commerce;
• flexible pricing and catalog models;
• connected collection;
• workflow orchestration;
• modern consumer results;
• longitudinal engagement;
• the existing LIS/LIMS to remain underneath;
• the laboratory to retain the commercial customer relationship.

Explore the Solia Direct Platform

2. Luminate Health

Best fit: laboratories prioritizing patient engagement, longitudinal laboratory data, and provider experience

Luminate Health approaches the market from a strong patient-engagement and laboratory-data foundation.

Its patient application publicly emphasizes understandable results, health categories, educational content, longitudinal and trendable laboratory results, patient matching, data structuring, harmonization, and ongoing communication.

Luminate also offers a dedicated provider engagement application that includes community laboratory records, result notifications, critical-value communication, provider notes, analytics, and risk-stratification capabilities.

That is a meaningful differentiator for laboratories where the digital strategy extends beyond consumers into provider and health-system relationships.

DTC capabilities

Luminate's DTC offering allows consumers to:

• browse a laboratory's test offerings;
• add tests to cart;
• pay online;
• receive results through the Luminate experience.

For laboratory operations, Luminate publicly describes phlebotomist order-management tools and real-time test catalog management.

Integration capabilities

Luminate's public integration stack includes:

• FHIR API;
• EMPI integrations;
• scheduling integrations;
• billing integrations;
• identity verification;
• single sign-on.

Where it stands out

Luminate's strongest public differentiation is not simply selling a test online.

It is using laboratory data to create a deeper patient and provider relationship.

For laboratories primarily focused on:

results → understanding → longitudinal history → provider engagement

Luminate should be on the shortlist.

Trade-off

Based on public product positioning, Luminate places more emphasis on patient/provider engagement, laboratory data, results, and analytics than Solia Direct places in its own positioning.

Conversely, Solia Direct places greater explicit emphasis on operating the entire consumer commercial layer—commerce, configurable business models, collection, workflow state, administration, and longitudinal consumer operations. That is a difference in center of gravity, not an assertion that either platform lacks the other's functionality.

Laboratories comparing the two directly can review the more detailed:

Solia Direct vs. Luminate Health comparison

Strongest fit when

Consider Luminate closely when:

• patient engagement is the primary strategic objective;
• longitudinal laboratory records are central;
• provider engagement matters alongside DTC;
• data harmonization and patient matching are major requirements;
• the laboratory wants a mature engagement layer around laboratory information.

3. TestDirectly / LigoLab

Best fit: laboratories prioritizing specimen workflow, collection, and operational integration

TestDirectly is a direct-to-consumer portal developed within the LigoLab ecosystem.

Its public product materials are particularly detailed around laboratory workflow.

TestDirectly supports patient self-registration, scheduling, specimen collection, digital requisitions, barcoding and tracking, automated result notification, patient/provider delivery, insurance information, eligibility checking, and multiple collection models. LigoLab states that TestDirectly can interface with laboratory information systems and laboratory revenue-cycle systems.

Collection flexibility

TestDirectly publicly describes support for collection models including:

• walk-up;
• drive-through;
• concierge;
• organizational;
• travel;
• pooled;
• at-home collection.

That operational heritage makes it particularly interesting for laboratories where DTC is fundamentally a specimen acquisition and processing problem.

Workflow orientation

LigoLab describes TestDirectly as covering the lifecycle of the specimen and case, rather than functioning solely as a storefront or results portal.

The platform's public laboratory page also emphasizes replacing paper requisitions and manual order entry with an electronic workflow connected to laboratory information systems.

Where it stands out

TestDirectly deserves serious consideration when the laboratory's priorities are:

registration → scheduling → collection → specimen → testing → reporting

with strong operational integration into laboratory infrastructure.

Trade-off

A significant amount of TestDirectly's public case-study history and messaging was developed around COVID-19, surveillance, organizational testing, and high-volume collection workflows, although current materials also describe broader DTC diagnostic use cases. Laboratories planning a premium wellness, longevity, recurring-testing, or membership-driven consumer business should validate the current consumer-commerce, longitudinal engagement, merchandising, retention, and brand-experience capabilities during the demo rather than assuming historical collection strengths answer those requirements automatically.

Strongest fit when

Consider TestDirectly when:

• specimen collection is operationally complex;
• LIS integration is a primary concern;
• digital requisitions matter;
• the laboratory operates multiple collection models;
• high-volume workflow automation matters more than consumer merchandising;
• the laboratory already uses or is considering broader LigoLab infrastructure.

4. Lifepoint Informatics

Best fit: laboratories wanting DTC inside a broader laboratory and healthcare integration ecosystem

Lifepoint Informatics approaches DTC as a dedicated software module within a broader healthcare technology and integration offering.

Its DTC product materials describe a cloud-based platform that connects with LIS and EMR systems and supports the journey from consumer test selection through results delivery.

Publicly documented capabilities

Lifepoint describes:

• branded consumer test search;
• patient portal;
• result history;
• test-order history;
• requisition printing;
• collection/testing directions;
• LIS and EMR interfaces;
• payment-gateway API connectivity;
• automated results notification.

Where it stands out

Lifepoint may be particularly attractive to organizations that view DTC as one component of a larger interoperability, provider connectivity, and laboratory IT strategy.

Its existing emphasis on integration differentiates it from vendors whose primary identity is consumer experience.

Trade-off

Lifepoint's public DTC materials make several broad compliance and performance claims. Laboratories should independently validate deployment-specific regulatory responsibilities, security controls, state-level workflow handling, certifications, implementation scope, and any vendor-reported performance metrics during diligence rather than relying solely on marketing claims.

That principle should apply to every vendor in this category.

Strongest fit when

Consider Lifepoint when:

• LIS/EMR connectivity is a major requirement;
• the organization already uses or values Lifepoint's broader integration ecosystem;
• the DTC project sits inside a wider laboratory IT modernization strategy;
• straightforward test ordering, payment, portal access, and results workflows are central.

What about ixlayer?

ixlayer is an important adjacent platform, but its current positioning is materially different.

As of August 2026, ixlayer describes ixEngage as a direct-to-patient platform built for biopharma, connecting patients to labs, providers, payments, prescriptions, telehealth, benefits verification, and other services.

Its laboratory-testing capabilities include test ordering, sample collection, and result delivery, but its primary customer narrative is currently pharmaceutical and life-sciences organizations rather than established laboratories building their own standalone consumer testing business.

For a laboratory serving pharmaceutical direct-to-patient programs, ixlayer may be highly relevant.

For a clinical laboratory whose primary objective is:

turn our existing testing infrastructure into our own branded DTC business,

the four platforms above are more directly comparable starting points based on current public positioning.

Which DTC lab platform is best for each strategy?

There is no credible answer to “best DTC platform” without specifying the strategy.

A more useful comparison is:

If your priority is building an owned consumer laboratory business

Start with:

Solia Direct

and compare it closely with Luminate, TestDirectly, and Lifepoint based on the integrations and operational requirements of your laboratory.

Solia Direct's architecture is explicitly centered on laboratory-owned catalog, pricing, domain, consumer experience, workflows, and customer relationship.

If your priority is patient and provider engagement

Start with:

Luminate Health

Its public platform is particularly mature in longitudinal laboratory results, educational context, patient matching, provider records, notifications, and analytics.

If your priority is collection and specimen workflow

Start with:

TestDirectly / LigoLab

Its public feature set is highly detailed around scheduling, collection, barcoding, digital requisitions, specimen workflow, LIS integration, insurance, and reporting.

If your priority is broader laboratory interoperability

Evaluate:

Lifepoint Informatics

Its DTC module sits inside a wider integration-oriented healthcare IT portfolio and publicly supports LIS and EMR connectivity.

If your laboratory has a large internal software organization

Also evaluate:

building internally

A custom build can provide maximum control, but the comparison should include the cost and ongoing ownership of:

• product management;
• engineering;
• UX;
• security;
• infrastructure;
• healthcare integrations;
• payment systems;
• identity;
• workflow orchestration;
• monitoring;
• compliance support;
• ongoing maintenance.

The decision is not “software license versus free custom development.”

Internal development simply moves the software cost onto the laboratory's own organization.

Do not evaluate DTC platforms with a generic feature checklist

Feature matrices are useful, but they can also create false equivalence.

Two vendors may both say they support “results.”

One may mean:

download a PDF.

Another may mean:

structured biomarkers, longitudinal history, educational interpretation, notifications, patient matching, and repeat-testing workflows.

Likewise, two vendors may both claim “LIS integration.”

One implementation might exchange:

orders + patient demographics + specimen states + structured results + corrections

while another passes a limited order file and receives a PDF report.

The checkbox is the same.

The operating reality is not.

Ask every vendor to demonstrate these 10 workflows

Before selecting a platform, ask vendors to perform a live demonstration using scenarios that resemble your actual laboratory.

1. Create a new test

Ask the vendor to create:

• a consumer-facing test;
• laboratory mapping;
• specimen requirements;
• price;
• geographic availability;
• collection rules.

Watch how much requires engineering support.

2. Place a real consumer order

Walk from:

test discovery → account → checkout → payment → confirmation

Do not accept screenshots.

3. Handle provider authorization

If your model requires an authorized order, demonstrate:

• pending authorization;
• completion;
• failed/incomplete authorization;
• consumer communication.

4. Schedule collection

Demonstrate the actual collection models you expect to use.

5. Send the order to the LIS/LIMS

Ask to see:

• data mapping;
• interface event;
• patient matching;
• requisition;
• acknowledgement;
• failure handling.

6. Reject a specimen

This is one of the most useful tests of whether a platform is truly operational.

Ask:

• What does the laboratory see?
• What does the consumer see?
• Who triggers recollection?
• What happens to the existing order?
• Is the event auditable?

7. Release a result

Confirm:

• where the authoritative result originates;
• how it enters the consumer platform;
• whether corrections/amendments propagate;
• how the consumer is notified.

8. Show longitudinal history

If repeat testing is part of your model, demonstrate the same biomarker across multiple orders.

9. Issue a refund

Follow the workflow across:

• consumer platform;
• payment processor;
• operational dashboard;
• order state.

10. Change the business model

Ask the vendor to demonstrate how the laboratory would introduce:

• member pricing;
• a bundle;
• a new geography;
• a new collection method;
• recurring testing.

That reveals how configurable the platform actually is.

The procurement questions that matter most

Before signing a DTC laboratory platform agreement, obtain clear answers to these questions.

Architecture

• Which system is authoritative for the clinical result?
• Where does patient identity live?
• Where does the order originate?
• Which data is duplicated between systems?
• What happens if an integration goes down?

Integration

• Which LIS/LIMS systems have you integrated with?
• Which integrations are existing versus custom?
• Do you support HL7, FHIR, APIs, or file-based exchange?
• Who builds and maintains the interface?
• How are interface errors monitored?

Operations

• How are rejected specimens handled?
• Can staff manually resolve exceptions?
• Is every state auditable?
• What operational dashboards are included?

Consumer experience

• Can we use our own brand and domain?
• Who controls design changes?
• Who controls test descriptions?
• Can we manage catalog and pricing ourselves?
• Is mobile treated as a primary experience?

Commercial model

• Can we support à-la-carte tests?
• Bundles?
• Repeat-testing programs?
• Membership pricing?
• Promotions?
• Different prices by geography or channel?

Data and ownership

• Who owns the consumer relationship?
• Who controls customer data?
• Can we export our data?
• What happens to the data if the contract ends?
• Are consumers marketed other products outside our laboratory?

Security and compliance

• Which party is responsible for which compliance obligations?
• Is a BAA available where required?
• Which certifications or independent audits apply?
• Which claims apply to the platform itself versus a specific deployment?
• How are permissions and audit logs implemented?

Commercial terms

• Implementation fee?
• Recurring platform fee?
• Per-order fee?
• Transaction percentage?
• Interface fees?
• Support fees?
• Minimum commitments?
• Fees for additional sites, states, or integrations?

The cheapest quoted platform can become the most expensive option if core workflow changes require continuous custom development.

Build, assemble, or buy a platform?

A laboratory has three fundamental choices.

Each choice is compared in detail in the build vs. buy comparison.

Build internally

Best when the laboratory wants maximum control and has a real software organization capable of maintaining the platform indefinitely.

Assemble point solutions

The laboratory can combine ecommerce, scheduling, telehealth, collection, payments, results, CRM, and integrations from separate vendors.

This provides flexibility but makes the laboratory responsible for integration and reconciliation across systems.

Buy a dedicated DTC laboratory platform

A platform consolidates more of the consumer and operational lifecycle behind one architecture.

This reduces some integration burden, but creates a more strategic vendor relationship.

The right question is not whether one model is universally better.

It is:

Which operating complexity does our laboratory want to own?

A practical platform-scoring framework

Do not let the best sales presentation determine the winner.

Create a weighted scorecard before vendor demonstrations.

For an established laboratory, a reasonable starting structure might be:

Those weights should change according to the laboratory.

A laboratory with sophisticated internal integration capabilities may reduce the integration weighting.

A laboratory building a premium national consumer brand may increase commerce, UX, and retention.

A laboratory expanding an existing outreach operation may emphasize provider engagement and operational workflows.

The point is to make the priorities explicit before each vendor tells you which priorities matter.

The most important distinction: portal versus operating layer

The DTC laboratory software category increasingly contains products that solve very different problems.

At one end is the patient portal:

Results → access

Then there is the DTC storefront:

Browse → purchase → result

Then there is the workflow platform:

Register → order → collect → specimen → process → report

And finally there is the broader consumer operating layer:

Discover → order → authorize → collect → process → result → understand → return

A laboratory should determine which of these it actually needs.

Buying a larger platform than necessary creates unnecessary cost and implementation burden.

Buying a smaller platform and attempting to turn it into the operating system for a national DTC business can create even more complexity.

Frequently asked questions

What is the best direct-to-consumer lab testing platform in 2026?

There is no single best platform for every laboratory. Solia Direct is oriented around the complete laboratory-owned consumer business; Luminate Health has particularly strong public patient/provider engagement and longitudinal-data capabilities; TestDirectly/LigoLab is strongly oriented toward specimen, collection, and laboratory workflow; and Lifepoint Informatics offers DTC capabilities within a broader healthcare integration stack.

Which DTC platform integrates with laboratory information systems?

Solia Direct publicly supports LIS/laboratory integrations, APIs, HL7/FHIR, and adapters. TestDirectly states that it interfaces with laboratory information systems and laboratory revenue-cycle systems. Lifepoint publicly documents LIS and EMR interfaces. Luminate publicly documents FHIR, EMPI, scheduling, billing, identity, and SSO integrations. The specific compatibility and implementation scope should be verified for the laboratory's existing systems.

Can a DTC laboratory platform operate under our brand?

The leading platforms reviewed here all describe branded or customizable consumer experiences to varying degrees. Laboratories should confirm the depth of white-label control, including domain, visual system, content, catalog, pricing, communications, and whether the laboratory retains the direct commercial relationship.

Does a DTC platform replace our LIS or LIMS?

Usually that should not be necessary. The consumer platform can sit above the laboratory's clinical systems and exchange orders, patient information, specimen/workflow data, and results. Solia Direct explicitly describes this architecture, while the other platforms reviewed also publicly document laboratory-system integration capabilities.

Should laboratories use Shopify or another generic ecommerce platform for DTC testing?

Generic ecommerce can solve catalog, checkout, promotions, and payment problems, but it does not inherently model laboratory orders, authorized ordering parties, specimen requirements, collection eligibility, accessioning, clinical results, recollection, or laboratory workflow. A laboratory can build those capabilities around ecommerce, but the integration and operating burden should be included in the build-versus-buy decision.

How much does a DTC laboratory platform cost?

Pricing structures vary considerably and may include implementation, recurring software, interfaces, transaction fees, support, and third-party services. The correct comparison is total cost of ownership rather than the headline subscription price.

See:

How Much Does It Cost to Launch Direct-to-Consumer Testing for an Existing Laboratory?

Which platform should your laboratory shortlist?

For most established laboratories, the decision can be narrowed quickly.

Shortlist Solia Direct if:

You want to build a laboratory-owned consumer business spanning commerce, collection, workflows, results, longitudinal engagement, and operations without replacing the laboratory systems underneath.

Shortlist Luminate Health if:

Your priority centers on patient engagement, provider engagement, longitudinal laboratory information, patient matching, and data-driven experiences, with DTC incorporated into that broader engagement model.

Shortlist TestDirectly / LigoLab if:

Your primary challenge is digitizing laboratory and specimen workflows, especially registration, collection, scheduling, requisitions, tracking, LIS connectivity, and reporting.

Shortlist Lifepoint Informatics if:

You want DTC ordering and patient access combined with broader LIS, EMR, and healthcare integration capabilities.

Then make each vendor prove the workflows against your actual laboratory systems.

Where Solia Direct fits

Solia Direct was built around the premise that established laboratories already have the clinical infrastructure required to perform testing.

What they often lack is the connected consumer operating layer around it.

Solia Direct connects:

to the laboratory infrastructure already in place.

The laboratory retains control of its brand, catalog, pricing, workflows, systems, and commercial relationship while Solia Direct provides the reusable platform layer underneath the consumer experience.

For laboratories evaluating Luminate specifically, see:

Solia Direct vs. Luminate Health

Or evaluate the platform directly: