What Whole Exome Sequencing Costs in 2026

A research-grade whole exome sold direct to you runs roughly $400 to $1,000 per sample in 2026. At that price you receive FASTQs and a VCF and nothing more. A CLIA/CAP clinical exome ordered through a physician lists at $2,000 to $6,000. A trio, meaning the affected person plus both parents, is typically priced at 1.5x to 2.5x the singleton rather than 3x. The reason is that the interpretation work is shared across the three samples. Insurance frequently pays a negotiated rate well under list. It may also deny the claim entirely and leave you with a bill somewhere in that range.

The published numbers vary more than you might expect. A 2018 systematic review found per-test cost estimates for whole exome sequencing (WES) spanning $555 to $5,169.¹ The spread was driven mostly by what each study chose to count as a cost, and that spread has not gone away. The figure to watch is not the sequencing price. It is the cost per interpreted result, because that is where most of the money goes.

What each price tier includes

Prices for exome sequencing cluster into three tiers. The difference between them is mostly about how much human interpretation and regulatory assurance comes attached. Knowing which tier you are buying tells you what you can legitimately do with the result.

$400–$700, research/consumer grade. This tier covers capture and sequencing to roughly 100x mean on-target depth. Alignment and germline variant calling are included as well. You receive FASTQ files, which hold the raw sequencing reads. You also receive a BAM or CRAM file, which holds those reads aligned to the reference genome. Finally you receive a VCF, the Variant Call Format file listing the positions where your sample differs from the reference. There is no CLIA sign-out and no clinical report. Variant curation and Sanger confirmation are also absent. This is perfectly good data if you intend to do the analysis yourself or hand it to an agent. It is not usable as the basis of a medical decision without confirmatory clinical testing.

$1,500–$3,000, clinical singleton. The wet lab work is the same as the tier above, with several layers added on top. The laboratory is certified under CLIA, the US standard for clinical testing, and its processes are CAP-accredited. A variant scientist reviews candidate variants against ACMG/AMP criteria. Reportable calls get orthogonal confirmation, and a clinician signs the final report. You also usually get the option to receive ACMG secondary findings. That list currently covers 81 genes in version 3.2 and is reported independently of the reason you were tested.

$3,000–$6,000+, trio or “expanded” exome. This tier adds parental samples for de novo and phasing analysis. It also adds exome-based copy number variant (CNV) calling, which looks for stretches of DNA present in too many or too few copies. Mitochondrial genome coverage is included, and sometimes targeted repeat expansion screening as well. Trio analysis is the single biggest lever on solve rate for suspected de novo conditions. A de novo variant in a proband with unaffected parents is the cleanest filter in Mendelian genetics.²

Where the money goes inside a WES run

It helps to separate the cost of the chemistry from the cost of everything else, because the two behave very differently. At volume on current instruments, the consumables per sample break down roughly as follows.

• Library preparation costs $30–$60.
• Exome capture probes cost $80–$200 depending on kit and pooling. Common options are the IDT xGen Exome Hyb Panel v2 at ~34 Mb of target, Twist Exome 2.0 at ~36.8 Mb, and Agilent SureSelect V8.
• Sequencing to 100x mean on-target depth calls for about 8–12 Gb of 2x150 paired-end data per sample. On a NovaSeq X 25B flow cell that is a small fraction of a lane and lands in the $40–$100 range.

Add those together and reagents come to well under $400. The remainder is labor, instrument depreciation, and quality control. It also covers sample accessioning, rework on failed runs, and interpretation. A detailed Dutch cost analysis of NGS diagnostics found that personnel and overhead dominate the fully loaded per-sample figure rather than reagents.³ That is why “the $1,000 genome” was never the same thing as a $1,000 test. The paper is the best guide we know of to the true internal cost of a diagnostic sequencing workflow once you count everything.

Cost-effectiveness studies bear this out from the other direction. Published estimates disagree wildly because some count only reagents. Others count the full diagnostic pathway, including clinician time and downstream confirmatory tests.¹ So when you see a $599 exome advertised, it is reasonable to assume the price covers reagents plus a thin margin. It is also reasonable to assume no human is looking at your variants.

Exome versus genome: the price gap is now small

The choice between an exome and a whole genome used to be settled by arithmetic, and the arithmetic has changed. Ten years ago the exome was the clear economic choice. Capturing the 1–2% of the genome that encodes protein caught most of the protein-coding variation, which was a good trade when sequencing dollars per base were the binding constraint. It was described at the time as the sweet spot before whole genomes became affordable.⁴ The exome’s productivity for Mendelian gene discovery in that era was extraordinary.⁵

Today the balance is different. Capture reagents are a fixed per-sample cost that has not fallen much, while sequencing has fallen a great deal. A 30x genome, meaning each base is read about 30 times on average, now costs a few hundred dollars of sequencing. It involves no capture step, no capture bias, and no probe design to keep current. The 2018 systematic review put whole genome sequencing (WGS) estimates at $1,906 to $24,810 against WES at $555 to $5,169.¹ Those are 2018 numbers, and the gap has compressed substantially since.

Our recommendation is straightforward. If you are paying out of pocket and are not constrained by an insurer’s CPT code, buy the genome. You get uniform coverage and far better CNV and structural variant sensitivity. You also get mitochondrial DNA at no extra cost, callable pharmacogene haplotypes, and no exon dropout. Exome capture is uneven by construction, since GC-rich first exons and segmental duplications drop out. A meaningful fraction of RefSeq coding bases falls below 10x even in a well-run exome.⁶ No amount of clever filtering recovers a region with zero reads.

There is one clear exception. The exome is the right choice if the clinical question is squarely Mendelian and coding, family members are available for a trio, and an insurer will pay for 81415 and 81416 but not 81425.

Insurance, CPT codes, and denials

Reimbursement in the United States turns on a small set of billing codes, so it is useful to know which ones apply. CPT 81415 covers exome sequence analysis for the proband, the person being tested. CPT 81416 covers each comparator exome, a parent for example. CPT 81417 covers re-evaluation of previously obtained exome data. Codes 81425, 81426, and 81427 are the genome equivalents.

Coverage is inconsistent and driven by indication. Payers commonly cover an exome for a child with multiple congenital anomalies or unexplained developmental delay or intellectual disability. They also cover it for a suspected genetic condition after non-diagnostic first-tier testing. They commonly deny it for adult-onset questions, for “I want to know” requests, and for anything framed as screening. Prior authorization is close to universal. It typically requires a clinical genetics note documenting the testing already done.

The economic case for covering exomes early in the workup is well documented. A prospective Australian study of infants with suspected monogenic disease compared early exome sequencing against a long sequence of single-gene and array tests. Testing early both raised the diagnostic rate and lowered the cost per diagnosis.⁷ A Dutch analysis of intellectual disability tracked care costs before and after a WES diagnosis. It similarly found that early sequencing displaces a substantial amount of downstream investigation.⁸ Cost-effectiveness in genomics depends heavily on where in the pathway the test sits and what it replaces.⁹

If you have a specific clinical suspicion, the practical route is through a clinical geneticist. A consumer exome cannot be reported back to you as a diagnosis. Any result that matters will need confirmation in a clinical lab in any case.

What you get back and what to do with it

Before you pay, settle what the vendor will hand over, because the raw data is the part with lasting value. Insist on FASTQ or CRAM in the contract. A vendor that returns only a PDF or a curated 200-variant report has sold you the least valuable part of the run. Typical deliverable sizes are as follows.

• 8–12 GB of gzipped FASTQ.
• 2–4 GB of CRAM aligned against the GRCh38 reference.
• A 150–400 MB gVCF.
• A filtered VCF containing roughly 20,000–25,000 variants within the capture target.

If you are reprocessing from FASTQ yourself, the pipeline below does the core work. It aligns the reads and marks duplicates. It then calls variants over your padded target regions and measures coverage.

bwa-mem2 mem -t 32 -R '@RG\tID:s1\tSM:s1\tPL:ILLUMINA' GRCh38.fa r1.fq.gz r2.fq.gz \
  | samtools sort -@ 8 -o s1.bam -
gatk MarkDuplicatesSpark -I s1.bam -O s1.md.bam
gatk HaplotypeCaller -R GRCh38.fa -I s1.md.bam \
  -L targets.padded100.bed -ERC GVCF -O s1.g.vcf.gz
mosdepth --by targets.bed --thresholds 1,10,20,30 s1 s1.md.bam

Read s1.thresholds.bed.gz before you read anything else. It tells you which exons you have no data for. In a decent exome, 90–95% of target bases clear 20x. If yours sits at 80%, you bought a cheaper run than you thought.

From there, annotate the variants with VEP. Then add gnomAD v4 allele frequencies, CADD scores, and SpliceAI predictions. Then filter. The standard first pass keeps variants that meet three conditions: a population allele frequency below 0.1% (popmax), a predicted loss of function or a missense change with strong in-silico support, and a genotype consistent with a plausible inheritance model. That takes 25,000 variants down to a few hundred. Adding a trio narrows it further to a handful of de novos. The filtering strategy and its failure modes have not changed much since they were first laid out.¹⁰

Questions people also ask

How much does a WES test cost? Expect $400–$1,000 for research-grade data you analyze yourself. Expect $2,000–$6,000 list for a CLIA clinical exome with a signed report. Published cost estimates across studies range from $555 to $5,169, largely because of differing accounting methods.¹

How much does a couple or trio WES cost? Expect 1.5x to 2.5x a singleton rather than 3x. Billing uses 81415 for the proband and 81416 for each additional family member.

Will insurance cover exome sequencing? Sometimes, with prior authorization. Coverage is almost always tied to a specific pediatric or congenital indication with prior non-diagnostic testing. The evidence supports early use on cost grounds, but payer policy lags that evidence.⁷

Is exome sequencing worth it? For a focused Mendelian coding question with family members available, yes. For general self-directed exploration, buy a 30x genome instead. Exome capture leaves coverage holes you cannot recover.⁶

How is WES testing done? A blood or saliva sample is collected and DNA is extracted. The DNA is then fragmented and turned into a sequencing library. Hybridization capture with biotinylated probes targets the ~34–37 Mb of coding sequence, followed by streptavidin pulldown and PCR. The captured library is sequenced with short reads to roughly 100x mean on-target depth. Those reads are then aligned and passed through variant calling.

Oak builds longitudinal molecular profiles of individuals: whole-genome sequencing, RNA sequencing, proteomics, blood biomarkers, and continuous glucose data, integrated into one model of you. Build your profile.

Footnotes

1. K Schwarze, J Buchanan, JC Taylor, et al. Are whole Exome and whole Genome Sequencing Approaches Cost-Effective? A Systematic Review of the Literature. Value in Health, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.04.677 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

2. Michael J. Bamshad, Sarah B. Ng, Abigail W. Bigham, et al. Exome sequencing as a tool for Mendelian disease gene discovery. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3031 ↩

3. Kirsten J M van Nimwegen, Ronald A van Soest, Joris A Veltman, et al. Is the $1000 Genome as Near as We Think? A Cost Analysis of Next-Generation Sequencing. Clinical Chemistry, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2016.258632 ↩

4. J. K. Teer, J. C. Mullikin. Exome sequencing: the sweet spot before whole genomes. Human Molecular Genetics, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddq333 ↩

5. Chee-Seng Ku, Nasheen Naidoo, Yudi Pawitan. Revisiting Mendelian disorders through exome sequencing. Human Genetics, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-011-0964-2 ↩

6. Amanda Warr, Christelle Robert, David Hume, et al. Exome Sequencing: Current and Future Perspectives. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.115.018564 ↩ ↩²

7. Zornitza Stark, Deborah Schofield, Khurshid Alam, et al. Prospective comparison of the cost-effectiveness of clinical whole-exome sequencing with that of usual care overwhelmingly supports early use and reimbursement. Genetics in Medicine, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.221 ↩ ↩²

8. Terry Vrijenhoek, Eline M. Middelburg, Glen R. Monroe, et al. Whole-exome sequencing in intellectual disability; cost before and after a diagnosis. European Journal of Human Genetics, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0203-6 ↩

9. Kurt Christensen, Dmitry Dukhovny, Uwe Siebert, et al. Assessing the Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Genomic Sequencing. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm5040470 ↩

10. Jacek Majewski, Jeremy Schwartzentruber, Emilie Lalonde, et al. What can exome sequencing do for you?. Journal of Medical Genetics, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2011-100223 ↩