What actually counts as continuous hormone monitoring? Why the industry can’t agree

As startups race to build the future of hormone intelligence, three distinct approaches are emerging

Continuous hormone monitoring is one of the most talked about emerging areas in women’s health.

Investors are backing startups. Researchers are pursuing new sensing technologies. Germany's SPRIND innovation agency has partnered with Clue founder Ida Tin to launch a €40 million challenge dedicated to continuous hormone monitoring.

The topic became even more visible this week when US startup Clair Health announced its $11.6 million seed round led by Khosla Ventures.

The company describes itself as building a continuous hormone monitor for women, yet unlike some others in the field, it does not directly measure hormones.

That might sound like a technicality. After all, so many of us are familiar with wearables such as Oura and WHOOP delivering our health insights without directly measuring the underlying biology.

But, it’s reignited an important debate. And after speaking with founders, researchers and industry leaders across the field over the past few months about this very topic, I’ve found that companies are pursuing at least three distinct approaches to solving the same problem - often under the same label and language.

Which begs the question - what should count as continuous hormone monitoring? And more importantly, does this even matter?

In this FutureFemHealth Pro analysis, we break down the three emerging approaches, where they differ, and why the debate could shape the future of women's health.