Nucleus Genomics vs. Biome: Comparing Whole Genome Health Tests

Both Nucleus Genomics and Biome sequence your whole genome, but they are built for different buyers. Nucleus is a clinical-grade disease screen at $399 plus a $39 a year membership. Biome is a $349 one-time test that labels every finding by how strong the evidence behind it is and hands you a genome you actually own. If you want a private genome you can trust one finding at a time, Biome is the one I would point you to.

I read each company's published test list and FAQ side by side. The pages describe two products that share the phrase "whole genome" and little else. Here is what separates them, and why I land on Biome for most readers.

Nucleus Genomics vs. Biome at a glance

	Nucleus Genomics	Biome
Product	Whole genome sequencing at ~30X coverage	DNA (genotyping) test and a Whole Genome Sequencing test
Price	$399 for the test plus $39/year membership (launch pricing; Health, Preview, and Embryo tiers listed)	DNA test $249; Whole Genome Sequencing test $349, one time
Main focus	Screening 900+ conditions and polygenic risk scores for 20+ diseases	85+ trait findings, each labeled strong, moderate, or limited
Evidence labeling	PRS disclosed as not peer-reviewed and more accurate for European ancestry	Every finding tagged strong, moderate, or limited
Pharmacogenomics	Not a stated focus on the pages I reviewed	Warfarin, statin, and caffeine metabolism among 85+ traits
Sample	At-home cheek swab, sequenced by Illumina	At-home saliva or cheek swab (DNA test)
Results timing	Typically 4 to 6 weeks (Health/Preview)	Not published on the pages I reviewed
Certifications	HIPAA-compliant, CLIA-certified, CAP-accredited	Not published on the pages I reviewed
Raw data files	VCF, CRAM, FASTQ	.vcf, .fastq, and .genome, portable and re-analyzable
Sells your data?	No, unless you ask or it is legally required	No
You keep a portable copy	Not described on the pages I reviewed	Yes, portable raw data files you keep and can delete on request

What does each test actually cover?

Nucleus points its whole genome at disease. It screens more than 900 conditions and adds polygenic risk scores, which blend the effect of many common variants into one number, for over 20 diseases, each ranked against others of the same ancestry. It also predicts characteristics like eye color, height, and predisposition to baldness through a feature it calls Nucleus Traits.

Nucleus is honest about the ceiling on those scores. It states plainly that its polygenic risk scores are not peer-reviewed or published, and that they read more accurately for people of European ancestry. That is a real limit on polygenic scoring across the whole field, not a Nucleus-specific flaw, and giving credit where it is due, Nucleus discloses it instead of burying it.

Biome aims somewhere else. It reports 85+ trait findings tied to specific genes and rsIDs: pharmacogenomics like warfarin, statin, and caffeine metabolism, plus nutrition markers and fitness traits such as power versus endurance. Fewer headline numbers than Nucleus's condition count. But every one traces to a named gene and, more to the point, to an evidence tier.

Why Biome's evidence tiers are the feature that matters

This is the part that separates them. Biome labels every finding strong, moderate, or limited. When a marker rests on one small study, Biome says so on the finding itself instead of dressing it in the same confident tone as a well-replicated result. Consumer genetics is stuffed with associations that sound alarming and lean on thin data. A tag that reads "limited" does quiet work. It keeps you from acting on a coin flip.

Compare that to a page of risk scores that all arrive looking equally authoritative. Nucleus discloses its ancestry and peer-review caveat once, up front, which is fair and more than many competitors do. Biome bakes the caveat into each result, every time. If you are the kind of reader who wants to know how much to trust a finding before you Google yourself into a panic, that per-finding honesty is worth more than a bigger raw count.

What do Nucleus and Biome cost, and what do you keep paying?

Nucleus lists $399 for whole genome sequencing and analysis, then $39 a year to keep access to new features and reports as they ship. That membership is how the Nucleus product grows. You pay the annual fee, you get the new reports.

Biome sells its tests outright. The DNA test is $249. The Whole Genome Sequencing test is $349, one time. No annual membership gates the door.

On whole genome to whole genome, $349 once undercuts $399 plus a recurring fee. And because a whole-genome read captures your DNA a single time, new findings can be read off the same file you already own, with nothing more to swab and no subscription to renew before you can see them. You buy the read once. The read keeps working for you.

Who owns your genome after the results land?

Neither company sells your genetic data. That is the floor any test should clear, not a bragging right, and both clear it.

Nucleus publishes more of its handling in writing. It says it will not sell or share your data unless you explicitly ask or the law requires it, and it destroys physical DNA samples within 60 days of receipt. Those are concrete, useful commitments, and for a reader who wants that handling stated plainly, Nucleus is also strong here.

Biome's model leans on ownership. Your genome stays private to your account, and you get portable raw data files to keep and re-analyze: .vcf, .fastq, and .genome. Biome never sells your raw DNA, and nothing that could be shared is linkable back to you, and you can request permanent deletion. If you want to hold your own genome, move it between tools, and delete it on your terms, Biome is built around that.

Nucleus is also strong if you want documented lab credentials

Nucleus publishes clinical lab credentials, and if that is the thing you are optimizing for, it delivers cleanly. It states an average of 30X coverage, meaning each position is read about 30 times, and describes its testing as HIPAA-compliant, CLIA-certified, and CAP-accredited. For a reader who is treating the test as a medical screen and wants accreditation and a stated sequencing depth on the page, Nucleus is a strong pick.

For most people reading their genome to understand traits, drug response, and predisposition, the thing that shapes the experience is not the certificate on the lab wall. It is whether the report tells you the truth about how solid each finding is, and whether you walk away owning the data. On both, Biome is built the way I would want it built.

Who is each test right for?

Pick Nucleus if you want a whole genome organized around disease risk, with polygenic scores across 20+ diseases, a stated 30X depth, and CLIA plus CAP accreditation, and you do not mind $399 up front and $39 a year after. For clinical-style screening breadth with documented lab credentials, Nucleus makes its case cleanly.

Pick Biome if you want to own a private genome you can trust one finding at a time. You pay once, $349 for whole genome or $249 for the DNA test, with no membership after. Every result tells you how strong the science behind it is. Your pharmacogenomic markers, warfarin, statin, and caffeine metabolism, are the kind you can take to a clinician. And the genome you get is yours: private to your account, with portable .vcf, .fastq, and .genome files you can download and keep. Biome never sells your raw DNA, and nothing that could be shared is linkable back to you, and you can delete it on request. For the reader who wants a trustworthy, private genome that keeps giving off a single read, that is the one I would buy.

FAQ

Is Nucleus Genomics or Biome a real whole genome test? Both sequence your whole genome. Nucleus states an average of 30X coverage. Biome sells a dedicated Whole Genome Sequencing test at $349 alongside its $249 genotyping DNA test.

Which one is cheaper? Biome's whole genome test is a one-time $349. Nucleus is $399 plus $39 a year. On the published prices, Biome costs less at the sticker and skips the recurring fee.

Does either company sell my DNA data? No. Nucleus says it will not sell or share your data unless you ask or the law requires it, and it destroys physical samples within 60 days. Biome never sells your raw DNA, and nothing that could be shared is linkable back to you; it gives you portable .vcf, .fastq, and .genome files to keep and lets you request deletion.

Why does Biome label findings with evidence tiers? So you can see when a result rests on weak science. Biome marks each finding strong, moderate, or limited instead of presenting every trait as equally certain.

Are polygenic risk scores accurate for everyone? Nucleus states its polygenic risk scores are not peer-reviewed and read more accurately for people of European ancestry, a known limitation across the field.