Ezra vs. Prenuvo vs. YEARS: Der große Ganzkörper-Diagnostik Vergleich

The market for preventive full-body screenings is growing rapidly

Driven by a new awareness of health and the desire to proactively address disease, more and more people are looking for ways to gain a comprehensive insight into their bodies. Providers such as Ezra and Prenuvo dominate the discussion in the United States with MRI-based scans. A closer look reveals: a sharp image alone is only a small part of modern preventive medicine.

This article provides an in-depth, evidence-based comparison of Ezra, Prenuvo, and the Berlin-based longevity provider YEARS. It compares not only technologies but also the underlying medical philosophies. If you are considering comprehensive health diagnostics, you should understand the difference between isolated images and an integrated medical picture that combines function, genetics, and research.

Quick overview: What distinguishes Ezra, Prenuvo and YEARS?

At first glance, all three companies offer “full-body screenings.” The fundamental differences lie in the medical approach and the depth of diagnostics. All three represent different philosophies of prevention.

Ezra

Ezra is a US-based provider focused on fast, AI-supported full-body MRI scans. A scan often takes only 20 to 60 minutes. Ezra positions itself as an accessible entry point into imaging-based prevention.

Prenuvo

Prenuvo, also based in the US, is considered a premium provider for imaging. The scans are longer and use specialized MRI protocols for high image quality. The focus is clearly on the best possible structural visualization of the body.

YEARS

YEARS is a physician-led longevity clinic in Berlin with a fundamentally different approach. A full-body MRI is only one component of a comprehensive diagnostic system. At YEARS, you receive in-depth laboratory diagnostics with up to 230+ biomarkers, extensive functional diagnostics with over 25 assessments (including ultrasound of the heart, vessels, and abdomen, body plethysmography, spiroergometry to determine VO₂max, and stress ECG), genomics, and a “clinic-as-a-study” model with its own biobank.

The key difference is not whether an MRI is performed, but how the results are interpreted and embedded into a broader medical context: a picture of the body or a complete medical dossier.

Imaging in detail: Scan duration and protocols

The debate around the magnetic field strength of MRI scanners, 3 Tesla (3T) versus 1.5 Tesla (1.5T), is technical but relevant for diagnostic quality.

A 3T MRI theoretically offers a higher signal-to-noise ratio, which can result in sharper images or shorter scan times. Providers use this for efficient, fast protocols. The downside can be more image artifacts, requiring experienced radiological interpretation.

A 1.5T MRI is considered a robust and well-established standard. With optimized, multiparametric protocols, excellent image quality with high diagnostic reliability can be achieved. Studies show that an optimized 1.5T protocol can reach comparable diagnostic performance to 3T in many screening applications, depending on the indication and protocol design.

Both Ezra and Prenuvo predominantly use 3T systems, so differences arise less from field strength and more from protocols, scan duration, and interpretation.

Within the YEARS Evolve® program, a full-body MRI is integrated based on a proprietary sequence. For you, clinical relevance is the priority, not raw scan speed. A different point is more important: the systemic limitations of pure MRI imaging. For lung function, for example, MRI has limited diagnostic value. That is why you also receive body plethysmography, a comprehensive lung function test that goes far beyond simple spirometry and provides detailed information on lung volumes, gas exchange, and performance capacity.

Without functional data, the picture remains incomplete. This applies to any imaging modality, regardless of the provider.

The invisible foundation: Why 230+ biomarkers matter more than images alone

This is where the biggest limitation of pure imaging providers lies. An MRI shows structural abnormalities—a tumor, a cyst, an aneurysm. What it does not show: the functional and metabolic imbalances that often precede these conditions by years.

Already in the YEARS Core® program, you receive 87+ biomarkers that go far beyond a standard check-up:

• ApoB (Apolipoprotein B): Conventional tests measure LDL cholesterol. ApoB measures the number of atherogenic particles that cause arterial plaque formation. Numerous studies confirm that ApoB is a more precise predictor of cardiovascular risk (Walldius & Jungner, 2006).
• HOMA index: This value measures insulin resistance, an early warning sign for type 2 diabetes that can become abnormal years before fasting glucose levels rise.
• hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein): A marker of chronic inflammatory activity associated with cardiometabolic and other diseases (Ridker et al., 2008).

These markers are standard in the Core® program. Providers such as Ezra and Prenuvo do not capture this dimension of health. You could receive a structurally normal scan while your blood values already indicate elevated risk.

The YEARS Evolve® (120+ biomarkers) and YEARS Ultimate® (230+ biomarkers) programs go even deeper: hormones such as testosterone, DHEA-S, and cortisol, oxidized LDL, the omega-3 index, amino acids, and cytokine profiles together create a multidimensional view of your health that no MRI scan can provide.

Cancer screening: Liquid biopsy as a complementary approach to MRI

Many patients hope that a full-body MRI will provide effective cancer screening. The data requires careful interpretation: non-specific full-body MRIs detect malignant findings in only a small percentage of asymptomatic individuals (Schmidt et al., 2023).

A complementary approach is multi-cancer early detection (MCED) testing, also referred to as liquid biopsy. These blood tests analyze circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) or circulating tumor cells to provide indications of cancer.

Starting from the YEARS Evolve® program, you receive a liquid biopsy (TruCheck) designed to screen for a wide range of solid tumor types. It is important to classify this correctly: these methods are still evolving and are not a replacement for established screening programs, but rather a complementary option whose results must always be interpreted in the full clinical context (Parikh et al., 2021).

The combination of structural imaging and molecular diagnostics can provide additional signals but does not replace careful medical interpretation. Pure imaging approaches reach limits here as well.

Biological age: Does diagnostics measure what actually matters?

Chronological age and biological age can differ significantly. Modern research uses epigenetic clocks to describe the functional state of cells and organ systems. These analyze DNA methylation patterns that change over time and correlate with health risks (Horvath & Raj, 2018).

Within the YEARS Evolve® program, your biological age is determined using seven different epigenetic clocks. This provides a research-oriented and experimental additional perspective on your aging process.

Genomics and research: From diagnostics to longevity medicine

The deepest insight into your personal health architecture is provided by the YEARS Ultimate® program. Diagnostics are expanded by two key pillars:

• Medical genetics: Sequencing of the exome and genome analyzes risk genes for cancer, cardiovascular, and metabolic diseases. A pharmacogenetic analysis provides insight into how your body may respond to specific medications.
• Microbiomics: Analysis of the gut microbiome provides additional information on interactions between diet, immune function, and metabolism.

More fundamental than the individual tests is the underlying model: the “clinic-as-a-study.” Starting from the Evolve® program, biological samples are cryopreserved. You participate in a prospective data collection that enables future analyses as new methods become available.

Costs, insurance and accessibility: A realistic comparison

A direct price comparison is difficult because the services differ fundamentally. Costs reflect the depth of diagnostics:

• Ezra: approx. $1,500 – $2,700
• Prenuvo: approx. $1,000 – $4,500

YEARS

• Core®: €1,900 (approx. $2,100)
• Evolve®: €7,600 (approx. $8,300)
• Ultimate®: €16,900 (approx. $18,500)

The Core® program already includes 87 biomarkers and comprehensive functional diagnostics that are not part of US-based offerings. Evolve® and Ultimate® are only partially comparable to Ezra or Prenuvo due to their broader scope.

For the German market, there is a financial aspect: YEARS is a physician-led clinic that bills according to the German fee schedule for physicians (GOÄ). Depending on the insurance plan, partial reimbursement by private health insurance (PKV) may be possible.

The medical reality: False positives and how they are handled

In a large proportion of asymptomatic individuals, incidental findings are detected in full-body MRI scans (Weber et al., 2020). Most of these findings are not clinically relevant.

However, such findings can lead to uncertainty and further diagnostic procedures. Structured medical follow-up is therefore essential.

The YEARS approach addresses this through the combination of imaging, biomarkers, and functional diagnostics. For you, this means: findings are interpreted in context and prioritized.

Conclusion: Which type of diagnostics is right for you?

The choice of provider depends on your goals, your expectations regarding medical depth, and your willingness to invest in prevention.

Three profiles can be distinguished:

• For the time-constrained beginner: If you are looking for a fast, purely imaging-based baseline and understand the limitations, Ezra can be a reasonable starting point.
• For the imaging-focused: If your priority is structural visualization, Prenuvo offers a strong MRI screening option.
• For a data-driven approach: If you view health as a system and want a physician-led combination of structural, functional, and laboratory diagnostics, YEARS is a more comprehensive option.

Prevention requires context. A single data point is rarely sufficient.

Schedule a non-binding consultation with the YEARS team to find out which approach fits you best.

Sources

Walldius, G., & Jungner, I. (2006). The apoB/apoA-I ratio: a strong risk factor. Journal of Internal Medicine, 259(5), 493–519.

Ridker, P. M., et al. (2008). Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events. New England Journal of Medicine, 359(21), 2195–2207.

Schmidt, M., et al. (2023). Incidental findings in whole-body MRI screening. JAMA Oncology.

Parikh, A. R., et al. (2021). Multi-cancer early detection test. Annals of Oncology.

Horvath, S., & Raj, K. (2018). DNA methylation biomarkers. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(6), 371–384.

Weber, M. A., et al. (2020). Incidental findings in whole-body MRI. European Radiology, 30(5), 2649–2659.