YEARS.

Why we put this clinic at number one

For three reasons that, together, no other clinic in this directory currently delivers in combination.

First, the diagnostic spread. The Evolve tier — the bestseller and the right starting point for most readers — runs a proprietary whole-body MRI sequence, AI-assisted skin and retinal screening, cardiovascular and abdominal ultrasound, CPET-grade VO₂ max with body plethysmography, a 120-marker blood panel, and a multi-cancer liquid biopsy, all in a single nine-hour day. The Ultimate tier extends that to 230 biomarkers, whole-genome sequencing, microbiome and epigenetic clocks. We have walked the workflow. It is the most rigorous outpatient longevity day currently available in Europe.

Second, the model. YEARS does not own a treatment programme. It does not sell peptide protocols, hyperbaric oxygen, hormone replacement, IV infusions or stem-cell therapies to its diagnostic patients. The financial incentive is the day, not the year of upsells that typically follows. This is the single biggest structural difference between YEARS and the rest of the category — and the reason it leads our ranking.

Third, the labelling. The Ultimate tier explicitly markets its emerging work — liquid biopsy, genomic stratification, the experimental longevity markers — as exploratory rather than as proven anti-ageing science. That distinction is small in the marketing copy and large in the practice. It tells the reader, accurately, what is and is not yet known.

Why the diagnose-only model matters

The dominant business model in longevity medicine, since at least 2020, is to combine a comprehensive diagnostic with an in-house treatment programme. The diagnostic identifies a biomarker outside the optimal range; the treatment programme corrects it; the same clinic earns from both. The patient is told this is integrated care.

It is also a structural conflict of interest. A clinic that profits from prescribing what it diagnoses has a financial incentive to find protocols. A clinic that does not — that diagnoses, then refers out — does not.

YEARS has chosen the second model. The strategy session that closes the day is a referral conversation, not a sales conversation. Hormone optimisation, peptide therapy, hyperbaric oxygen, off-label pharmacology — if your data warrants any of these, YEARS will name a clinician you can see. They will not bill for the protocol.

In the directory we run, this is currently unique at the depth YEARS operates. Biograph and Early Medical run similar models. Most of the rest do not.

The three tiers

Core (€1,900). Six hours, 87 biomarkers, 25 functional examinations. Heart and abdominal ultrasound, AI skin mapping, retinal analysis, ergospirometry, neurocognitive testing. The right tier for the under-thirty-five reader doing a thorough first baseline.

Evolve (€7,600). Nine hours, 120 biomarkers, the whole-body MRI, multi-cancer liquid biopsy, plus everything in Core. The bestseller. Includes a written annual update. The right tier for most readers thirty-five to fifty-five.

Ultimate (€16,900). Nine hours, 230 biomarkers, whole-genome and epigenome sequencing, microbiome stool analysis, plus the Evolve workup. Three clinician check-ins across the year, continuous monitoring support, access to the clinic’s small N=1 longevity studies. The right tier for the reader with significant family history, complicated metabolic baseline, or the desire to fund deeper-going work.

Where it falls short

Two honest caveats.

YEARS does not deliver treatments. If your model of a longevity clinic is single-roof — diagnostic in the morning, peptide infusion in the afternoon — this is not that. The handoff is well-managed but it is a handoff.

Booking lead time is currently eleven weeks at Evolve. The slot you want is the slot booked already. Plan a quarter ahead.

The verdict

For the patient asking where do I begin — and asking it without wanting the answer to come from a sales team — YEARS is the clearest answer in the category right now. The day is exceptional. The follow-up is real. The model is the one we believe the field should be moving towards.

A clinic that profits from your protocol has a different incentive to a clinic that profits from your data. We rank the second model first.