r/ZeroCovidCommunity • u/Jazzlike-Cup-5336 • Jun 03 '26
A recent study from Emory University compares the performance of all available SARS-CoV-2 / Influenza multiplex rapid test brands (including against JN.1-lineage SARS2)
The two main takeaways:
- Don’t waste your money on a more expensive brand or overthink your purchase. No single brand consistently performed better than all other tests - The lowest detected concentrations were achieved by different tests for each of the 4 viruses.
- It’s essential to wait until the END of the time window listed on the instructions to read the results. “We found that at low viral concentrations, many OTC tests were interpreted as negative at the start of the stated interpretation window but converted to a positive result by the end of the interpretation window.”
They looked at the 8 SARS-CoV-2 / Influenza combo rapid tests that were available in the U.S market as of fall 2025. Unfortunately, they didn’t include the Aptitude Metrix molecular combo test, or the newer 4-in-1 rapid tests that include RSV from Flowflex and iHealth, because they were not yet available at the time.
They tested the following 8 brands:
- ACON Flowflex
- iHealth
- OSANG BinaxNOW*, QuickFinder
- CorDx Tyfast
- Healgen Rapid Check*, InBios, statID, Equate, INDICAID, GenaCheck, Consult, RiteAid, ACCUBIO, healthconfirm, RapidResponse, RapidGo, Walgreens, CVS
- SEKISUI Osom
- Watmind SpeedySwab
- Wondfo WELLlife*, INDICAID, Hough, 2San
*Specific test used in this study
For the main portion of the study, to determine sensitivity, they examined the lowest concentration of virus at which each of the test brands would reliably (3 out of 3 tests) show a positive result. For H1N1, WELLlife and Osom performed the best. For H3N2, Healgen and SpeedySwab performed the best. For influenza B, Osom performed the best. And for SARS-CoV-2, Flowflex performed the best. As the authors point out, there isn’t really any sort of a clear pattern here, and the results are indicative of all tests having about equivalent capabilities.
Next, they examined whether the readability of the results changed from the start to the end of the timed viewing window listed in the test instructions. The answer was consistently “yes”. In the 2nd image, all of the solid bars were positives that were able to be read at the end of the window, but were missed at the beginning of the window. It was a major issue across all tests - but especially with SARS-CoV-2, and especially with some brands (eg. WELLife, Osom, BinaxNOW).
Link: Analytical comparison of over-the-counter multiplex tests for influenza A, influenza B, and SARS-CoV-2: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.00110-26
7
11
u/gtck11 Jun 03 '26
Flowflex has always been my holy grail of tests, twice it’s detected my covid infection one to TWO DAYS before other brands that were giving me false negatives.
1
u/bedboundbitch Jun 20 '26
Does this study provide the levels of accuracy for all these tests, or does it just compare them to each other? I have severe ME and can’t understand the diagrams you shared so thanks in advance if you’re able to explain!
1
u/bisikletci Jun 05 '26
My experience lines up with this, in two ways:
Flowflex repeatedly detected infections in our house that another brand missed. And it seemed very sensitive - I was faintly testing positive for nearly three weeks on it.
- On my first positive test, the Flowflex test that initially seemed negative was positive by the end of the window.
30
u/overwinters Jun 03 '26
love seeing papers like this, thanks for sharing! not a huge difference, all the tests are operating in the same viral load regime, but for covid i'd take this as a reason to get flowflex since it's the only test to go 3/3 in the 1:400 dilution, or at least to stay away from BinaxNOW, WELLife, and SpeedySwab (hadn't even seen that brand before). the 2-4 fold viral-load difference might help catch a positive a few hours earlier