When it comes to your hormone health, peace of mind isn’t a “nice to have”—it’s everything.
Whether tracking ovulation, navigating hormone changes, or managing long-term cycle health, the quality of your data directly impacts the decisions you make and the confidence you feel in your body.
In 2025, MiraLabs conducted a lab study comparing Mira’s monitoring of LH, FSH, E3G and PdG to 3 popular quantitative at-home hormone trackers.
Based on an internal, controlled, side-by-side lab study comparing Mira with other quantitative at-home hormone trackers using the same samples, and averaging across 4 different hormones and the compared products.
Up to 7× more accurate, up to 3× more reliable, and up to 6× more sensitive than other at-home quantitative hormone trackers¹
The results showed that Mira is more accurate, reliable, and sensitive in detecting certain key hormones, giving users clearer insights when it matters most.
Mira is the only at-home hormone monitor with fluorescent technology. Many independent studies² comparing hormone tracking technologies confirm fluorescent technology as the most advanced.
Let’s break down how this data was collected and analyzed, and why these findings are meaningful for anyone on a hormone health journey.
About this study
What was the goal?
We wanted to answer a simple question: How reliable are different hormone tests when measuring the same sample?
We put Mira side-by-side with 3 other popular at-home quantitative hormone trackers and tested them under the same conditions to see how they perform, to evaluate how precisely and reliably they measure key fertility hormones.
What was the method?
We tested Mira Hormone Monitor with Ultra4 Wands alongside 3 at-home quantitative hormone testing brands.
- All products tested the same urine samples, at the same time, in an internal, controlled laboratory setting.
- We measured 4 core hormones important for cycle and ovulation tracking: LH, FSH, E3G, and PdG.
- Each test was repeated multiple times to see how consistent the results were—not just once, but over and over again.
- For camera-based tests, we also checked how results changed with different lighting conditions and different phone cameras, reflecting real-world use.
What were we comparing against?
All of the trackers in this comparison study provide quantitative (numeric) hormone results, measure 4 key reproductive hormones, display results in a mobile app allowing users to see trends and patterns over time, and are intended for at-home use without the need for laboratory processing.
What did we analyze?
Instead of just asking “does it detect hormones?” we focused on what really matters to users:
- Accuracy — how close the result is to the true hormone level
- Consistency — whether you get the same result when testing the same sample repeatedly
- Sensitivity — the ability to detect low hormone levels
- Stability — whether results change due to lighting, phone camera, or environment
Why does this matter for users?
When you use quantitative trackers, your insights and decisions depend on the numbers you get. If results vary too much, it becomes harder to understand your hormone patterns.
This study helps ensure that when you test with Mira, the data you see is reliable enough to make confident decisions.
Up to 7x more accurate—for data you can trust.
What do we mean?
“More accurate” means how closely the device’s results match lab results.
Each urine sample was tested in a controlled lab setting using certified commercial reference standards, and compared against results from each tracker. These standardized measurements were used as the reference values.
The tracker whose result is closest to that lab value is considered the most accurate.
- On average, Mira's results were consistently the closest to lab values across LH, FSH, PdG, and E3G.
- On average, Tracker 1, Tracker 2 and Tracker 3 showed overall much lower or over-range values, particularly for E3G and FSH.
How does Mira compare to competitors?
Accuracy based on RD Error Ratios.
|
Accuracy |
Mira vs. Tracker 1 | Mira vs. Tracker 2 | Mira vs. Tracker 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| For E3G | 18.8x more accurate | 3.5x more accurate | 1.5x more accurate |
| For PdG | ~2x more accurate | 15.6x more accurate | ~8x more accurate |
| For LH | ~6× more accurate | ~6x more accurate | ~5x more accurate |
Why up to 7x?
Up to 7x more accurate is based on an average comparison of the devices and four hormones—ranges vary from 1.5× to 18.8× for different hormones (LH, FSH, E3G and PdG).
“Up to 7x more accurate” on average does not mean every hormone result is 7× better, or every other tracker is 7× worse.
When accuracy improvements are averaged across hormones and competitors, Mira’s results are up to ~7× closer to lab values overall.
- Some hormones show very large gains (10–18×)
- Some show moderate gains (3–6×)
- A few are closer (e.g., 1.5×)
When you average these relative accuracy improvements, the overall magnitude is up to ~7×.
Here’s a closer look at how Mira compares, for each hormone:
LH: 4~6× More Accurate
E3G: 2~18× More Accurate
PdG: 2~15× More Accurate
Up to 3x more reliable—for clearer trends, fewer surprises.
What do we mean?
“More reliable” refers to better consistency in hormone tracking across real urine samples—measured as linearity, precision, and reproducibility.
In other words, to test reliability, we don’t just look at one result. We take urine samples and test them many times at different hormone levels.
A more reliable tracker gives similar results when the same sample is tested again. Imagine a thermometer: a reliable one shows 37°, 37°, 37° when your temperature hasn’t changed – not 35°, then 38°.4, then 37.2°.
On average Mira shows stronger linearity and precision than all other competitors across hormone dilution gradients.
- On average, competitors often produced over-range results (Tracker 2, Tracker 3) or non-linear outputs (Tracker 1).
- On average, Mira’s linearity was “significantly better”, and performance held even in natural biological urine samples.
- On average, Tracker 1, Tracker 2 and Tracker 3 were reported to show no correlation or poor differentiation at high or low levels.
- On average, if Mira Ultra4 maintained usable output across the full curve while others did so for ~⅓ of the range, this supports up to 3× higher reliability.
How does Mira compare to competitors?
Reliability based on Consistency/CV.
| Reliability | Mira vs. Tracker 1 | Mira vs. Tracker 2 | Mira vs. Tracker 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| For E3G | 1.3x more reliable | 4.0x more reliable | 3.8x more reliable |
| For PdG | 0.8x less reliable | ~2x more reliable | 1.6x more reliable |
| For LH | ~4.5x more reliable | 6.2x more reliable | 5.1x more reliable |
Why up to 3x?
Up to 3× more reliable is based on an average comparison across the devices and four hormones—ranging from 1–4× for E3G to 4–6× for LH.
Again, “up to 3× more reliable” refers to an average across hormones and competitors. It doesn’t mean every hormone result is exactly 3× better, but that overall, Mira’s measurements were up to three times more consistent.
Here’s a deeper breakdown of Mira’s stats for each hormone:
LH: 4~6× More Reliable
E3G: 1~4× More Reliable
PdG: 0.8~2× More Reliable
Up to 6x more sensitive—detect hormone shifts others miss.
What do we mean?
“More sensitive” refers to how small a hormone concentration a device can accurately detect. This is measured by something called the lower limit of detection (LoD).
Sensitivity is about whether a device can pick up on low hormone levels—not just high ones. To test this, we measure urine samples with very small, gradually increasing hormone concentrations and see when a tracker can reliably detect a real signal instead of background noise.
A more sensitive tracker can spot subtle hormone changes earlier and more clearly.
- On average, Tracker 1, Tracker 2 and Tracker 3 had significantly higher LoD or poor detection at low hormone levels.
- On average, some competitors (like Tracker 2) missed detection at low PdG/LH levels, which are critical for confirming ovulation or spotting imbalances.
How does Mira compare to competitors?
Sensitivity based on Detection Limits.
| Sensitivity | Mira vs. Tracker 1 | Mira vs. Tracker 2 | Mira vs. Tracker 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| For E3G | 1x same | 6x more sensitive | 4x more sensitive |
| For PdG | 1x same | 2x more sensitive | 1x same |
| For LH | 4x more sensitive | 4x more sensitive | 4x more sensitive |
Why up to 6x?
Up to 6x more sensitive is based on an average comparison across the devices and four hormones—this ranges from 1–2× for PdG to 6× for E3G.
Remember, “up to 6× more sensitive” reflects the highest difference across hormones and competitors. It doesn’t mean every hormone is detected at exactly six times the sensitivity, or that other trackers fail to detect low levels altogether.
Some hormones showed greater gains than others, but overall the results show that Mira reliably detects lower hormone concentrations.
Here are Mira’s numbers broken down by hormone:
LH: 4x More Sensitive
E3G: Up to 6x More Sensitive
PdG: Up to 2x More Sensitive
Why This Matters—Your Hormone Health Journey
A hormone tracker like Mira that’s more accurate, reliable, and sensitive doesn’t just provide clearer numbers—it produces better understanding, and a clearer path to your goals.
Higher accuracy means you can trust what you’re seeing. Skip the extra long wait for lab results, and bring hormone data to your doctor that is just as precise.
Greater reliability means those insights hold up day after day, cycle after cycle. Your patterns become clear, and so do your next steps to getting pregnant or understanding symptoms.
Better sensitivity means subtle hormone shifts aren’t missed, even when levels are very high or low, or changing quickly. Built for any cycle and optimized for PCOS, hormonal imbalance and irregularities.
This kind of clarity supports more confident decisions, more informed conversations with healthcare providers, and a stronger sense of control over your hormone health journey—whether the goal is conception, cycle awareness, or better long-term hormonal wellbeing.
¹ Based on an internal, controlled, side-by-side lab study comparing Mira with other quantitative at-home hormone trackers using the same samples, and averaging across 4 different hormones and the compared products.
- Up to 7x more accurate means Mira’s readings matched lab results more closely on average.
- Up to 3x more reliable means those readings were more consistent across hormone concentration levels.
- Up to 6x more sensitive means Mira could detect lower hormone concentration levels.
This reflects technical accuracy in alignment with a lab, not ovulation-prediction accuracy. Individual results may vary. Mira is not a diagnostic or contraceptive device.
² Independent studies comparing hormone tracking technologies, including fluorescent technology: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31319629/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24287414/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37754072/, https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/19/7398
