NASDAQ: NTRA

​

Our revenues were $2,306.1 million in 2025 compared to $1,696.9 million in 2024 and $1,082.6 million in 2023. Our product revenues were $2,295.8 million, $1,685.1 million, and $1,068.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024, and 2023, respectively. Our net losses increased to $208.2 million in 2025, from $190.4 million in 2024 and decreased from $434.8 million in 2023. We processed approximately 3.5 million tests in 2025, compared to approximately 3.1 million tests in 2024 and 2.5 million tests in 2023.

We are headquartered in Austin, Texas, with laboratory facilities located in Austin, Texas, San Carlos, California and Boulder, Colorado.

Our Solution

In oncology, women’s health, and organ health, the use of blood-based tests offers significant advantages over older and more invasive methods, but the significant technological challenge is that such testing often requires the measurement of very small amounts of relevant genetic material – tumor DNA in oncology, fetal DNA in reproductive health, and donor DNA in transplant rejection – circulating within a much larger blood sample. Our approach combines proprietary molecular biology and computational techniques to measure genomic variations in tiny amounts of DNA, as small as a single cell. Our core technology has, to date, been proven across these three diverse fields of oncology, women’s health, and organ health.

DNA is the molecule that carries genetic information in an organism. Differences in the specific sequence and structure of the chemical building blocks, or bases, that make up DNA drive biological diversity, including genetic mutations; with certain variations causing disease. An example of genetic diversity is a change in a single chemical base. When single base changes are common in the population, that position on the chromosome is called a single nucleotide polymorphism, or SNP.

6

Table of Contents

Our molecular biology techniques are based on measuring thousands of SNPs simultaneously, using massively multiplexed polymerase chain reaction, or mmPCR, to multiplex, or target, many thousands of regions of the genome simultaneously in a single test reaction. Our method avoids losing molecules, which can happen when samples are split into separate reaction tubes, so that all relevant variants can be detected. To make sense of the resulting deep and rich set of biological data and deliver a test result, we have developed computationally intensive algorithms that combine the data generated by mmPCR with our internal databases and the vast and growing sources of publicly available genomic information to build highly detailed models of the genomic regions of interest. Our technologies allow us to achieve a high signal-to-noise ratio when detecting fragments of DNA at frequencies as low as a single copy, which allows us to deliver tests with a high degree of specificity and sensitivity. Furthermore, our tests can be applied to assess a range of conditions and disease types, including a broad range of cancer types; common fetal aneuploidies, microdeletions, triploidy, and inherited genetic conditions that could be passed on from parent to child; rejection of heart, lung, and kidney transplants; and genetic bases of kidney disease.

We believe our approach represents a fundamental advance in molecular biology. For example, in oncology, with our Signatera circulating tumor DNA, or ctDNA, test that is custom designed for, informed by and specific to the tumor DNA for each patient, we have demonstrated the ability to detect ctDNA with a high degree of sensitivity and specificity. In women’s health, our approach is distinct from the approach employed with other commercially available NIPTs, which use first-generation “quantitative”, or counting, methods to compare the relative number of sequence reads from a chromosome of interest to a reference chromosome. Based on data published in journals including Obstetrics & Gynecology, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Prenatal Diagnosis, we believe Panorama is the most accurate NIPT commercially available in the United States. In organ health, we have demonstrated the ability of our technology to measure the fraction of cell-free DNA that is donor-derived, or dd-cfDNA, which is DNA that is shed from a transplanted organ into circulation, each demonstrating a high area under the curve, or AUC, in validation studies in each of heart, lung, and kidney.

Our technology is compatible with standard equipment used globally and a range of next generation sequencing, or NGS, platforms, and we have optimized our algorithms to enable laboratories around the world to run tests locally and access our algorithms in the cloud using our Constellation platform. We sell our tests directly and partner with other clinical laboratories to distribute our tests globally. Currently, all of our products other than our Constellation cloud software product are laboratory developed tests, or LDTs. We perform commercial testing in our CLIA-certified laboratories.

Oncology

In oncology, we have been initially focused on detecting molecular residual disease, or MRD, and recurrence monitoring in solid tumors, where we have generated data in over a dozen different cancer types and have published data in, among others, colorectal, bladder, breast, and lung cancer, as well as multiple myeloma and other tumor types. Molecular residual disease is the presence of small traces of cancer in the blood, such as ctDNA or microscopic pieces of tumor DNA that are often undetectable with standard imaging techniques. If left untreated, residual cancer cells can multiply and cause recurrence. MRD testing and molecular monitoring offers the potential for physicians to change or escalate treatment in patients who are MRD-positive, and to de-escalate or avoid unnecessary treatment in patients who are MRD-negative. It also holds potential as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials.

In December 2025, we acquired Foresight Diagnostics, a cancer diagnostics company whose ctDNA-based MRD tests leverage patented technology that targets phased variants. Phased variants are multiple genetic mutations that occur on the same DNA molecule; targeting phased variants has been shown to achieve test performance with a limit of detection, or LOD, 95 of 0.3 parts per million and detection below 0.1 part per million. In addition, with the acquisition, we have expanded our focus to include lymphoma.

The total addressable market in the United States for recurrence monitoring for solid tumor cancers, including immunotherapy treatment response monitoring, is estimated to be approximately $21 billion, and for blood cancers is estimated to be approximately $3 billion.

7

Table of Contents

We are also leveraging our experience in MRD assay development to research, develop and clinically validate an early cancer detection test, with an initial focus on colorectal cancer.

Signatera

Signatera is our personalized ctDNA blood test for MRD assessment, early recurrence monitoring, and evaluation of treatment response in patients previously diagnosed with cancer. Each patient receives a custom assay that tracks the presence of tumor-specific clonal mutations that are selected based on the unique mutational signature found in that patient’s tumor tissue, which is intended to maximize accuracy for detecting the presence or absence of residual disease in a blood sample, even at a sample-level average variant allele frequency, or VAF, of mutations as low as 0.0002% in the blood. We believe this tumor-informed approach is optimal in the MRD setting, in which it is common for tumor DNA to be present only at low frequencies immediately after treatment. Unlike static liquid biopsy panels (also known as therapy selection) or comprehensive genomic profiling, or CGP, which screen for a generic set of mutations independent of an individual’s tumor, Signatera is not intended to match patients with any particular therapy. Rather, it is intended to detect and assess how much cancer is left in the body (offering both a qualitative and quantitative measurement), detect recurrence earlier, and help optimize treatment decisions. Signatera has been shown to detect residual disease earlier than clinical or radiological recurrence in patients with solid tumors who have received treatment.

We offer Signatera commercially for clinical use as an LDT in our own CLIA-certified and CAP-accredited laboratories. We also offer Signatera for research use only to cancer researchers and biopharmaceutical companies. Signatera is covered by Medicare for use in the adjuvant and recurrence monitoring settings in patients with certain forms of colorectal cancer, muscle invasive bladder cancer, advanced breast cancer in certain settings, and advanced ovarian cancer; in non-small cell lung cancer in the surveillance setting, and for immunotherapy response monitoring for all solid tumor types in any patient for whom immunotherapy is indicated. Signatera is also covered under the coverage policies of certain commercial third-party payers, including a pan-cancer coverage policy for adjuvant, recurrence monitoring and treatment monitoring for solid tumors. Signatera has been granted Advanced Diagnostic Laboratory Test, or ADLT, status by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. In addition, Signatera has been granted Breakthrough Device Designations by the FDA covering its use in various applications.

Signatera has been shown in various clinical studies – including over 170 peer-reviewed publications as of December 31, 2025 – to identify MRD significantly earlier than standard diagnostic tools, and that Signatera test status is a significant indicator of long-term patient outcomes after surgery and treatment, relative to other clinical and pathological factors. In particular, we have demonstrated in studies across multiple tumor types, including colon, breast, lung and bladder, that a positive Signatera test result, without further treatment, has predicted relapse with an overall PPV of over 98%. Furthermore, a study published in Clinical Cancer Research demonstrated the ability of Signatera to assess the rate of change in quantity over time, or velocity, of ctDNA in early-stage colorectal cancer patients, providing additional information that may be used to predict patient survival and outcomes, further stratify MRD-positive patients, and inform disease management. Signatera has also been shown, in an analysis published in Nature Medicine, to be able to predict overall survival in colorectal cancer patients as well as overall survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We are continuing to generate data, building evidence of the clinical validity and utility of the test across multiple cancer types and in collaboration with leading universities and cancer centers, NIH’s National Cancer Institute, or NCI, non-profit cancer research groups, and pharmaceutical companies.

Latitude

We recently launched Latitude, our blood-based MRD test for colorectal cancer that does not require a tumor tissue sample. Latitude has been shown to perform with high sensitivity and specificity in detecting residual disease in this cancer type. When a Signatera test is ordered, the provider can request that the blood sample be automatically tested with Latitude if the tissue sample is unavailable or insufficient to create a Signatera assay for the patient.

8

Table of Contents

Altera

Altera is our tissue based comprehensive genomic profiling test that provides insight into genomic alterations and biomarkers found in a patient’s tumor, supporting treatment decisions and therapy selection by identifying potentially beneficial therapies based on the patient’s tumor biomarkers and cancer type. Based on our internal estimates, therapy selection represents an approximate $7.0 billion market opportunity. Altera can be ordered as a stand-alone test, as well as in conjunction with our Signatera MRD test to combine therapy selection with ongoing monitoring.

Empower

Empower, our hereditary cancer screening test, offers five panel options across 12 common hereditary cancer types, and customizable panels with over 190 gene options. We offer Empower through our oncology commercial channel as well as our women’s health channel. Information from the test can help determine if a patient who has been diagnosed with cancer is a carrier of a mutation associated with their cancer. This can inform surgical and therapeutic decisions, as well as provide an opportunity to notify family members who may be at similar risk for hereditary cancer.

Women’s Health

We provide testing to support a spectrum of women’s health needs, from family planning and prenatal testing to hereditary cancer screening.

Panorama

We launched Panorama, our non-invasive prenatal test, or NIPT, in 2013 and have since gone from being the fourth company to enter the NIPT market to being the market leader by volume in the United States. Panorama helps physicians assess the risk of fetal genetic abnormalities by non-invasively screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities, including Down syndrome, Edwards syndrome, Patau syndrome, Turner syndrome and triploidy, which often result in intellectual disability, severe organ abnormalities and miscarriage. Panorama also screens for five of the most common genetic diseases caused by microdeletions – 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (DiGeorge syndrome), 1p36 deletion, Angelman syndrome, Cri-du-chat syndrome and Prader-Willi syndrome. Diseases caused by microdeletions are often not detected via common screening techniques such as ultrasound or hormone-based screening, yet the presence of a microdeletion can impact prenatal and postnatal treatment. For example, when learning prior to birth that a newborn has 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, doctors will know to monitor the infant and administer calcium if needed to avoid seizures and permanent cognitive impairment, and may decide to delay live vaccine administration due to the immunodeficiency frequently associated with this condition. Unlike Down syndrome, where the risk increases with maternal age, the risk of the five microdeletions that Panorama screens for is independent of maternal age. Based on data published in Prenatal Diagnosis and American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the combined prevalence of these targeted microdeletions is approximately one in 1,000 pregnancies, which collectively makes them more common than Down syndrome for women approximately 28 years of age or younger. In particular, 22q11.2 is the most common microdeletion; a key finding from our SNP-based Microdeletions and Aneuploidy RegisTry (SMART) study described below was a higher-than-expected prevalence of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome of one in 1,524 pregnancies in the study cohort.

Panorama can also identify fetal sex for single birth pregnancies as well as of each fetus in twin pregnancies, and has demonstrated the ability to identify fetal sex more accurately than competing NIPTs. This is partially a result of Panorama’s unique ability to detect a vanishing twin, which is a known driver of fetal sex errors with the quantitative methods used by our competitors. The American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology noted that the ability of Panorama to identify additional fetal haplotypes is expected to result in fewer false positive calls and prevent incorrect fetal sex calls compared to other methods.

​

9

Table of Contents

In 2024, we launched our Fetal RhD NIPT, which assesses fetal rhesus factor, or RhD, status to help inform decisions regarding administering RhD immune globulin to RhD negative pregnant patients. Pregnant patients with an RhD-negative blood type and carrying an RhD-positive fetus can, if the maternal and fetal blood mixes during pregnancy, produce antibodies, or alloimmunize, against fetal RhD in response. This can put subsequent pregnancies with an RhD-positive fetus at risk for anemia and potentially life-threatening complications. The standard of care in the U.S. is to administer RhD immune globulin to RhD-negative pregnant patients; however, according to ACOG, an estimated 40% of RhD-negative patients have an RhD-negative fetus and therefore receive RhD immune globulin unnecessarily. The clinical validation study of this test, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, demonstrated greater than 99% sensitivity and specificity in identifying fetal RhD status.

Panorama demonstrates the capabilities of our technology by employing our fundamentally unique approach of simultaneously measuring thousands of SNPs in a single test reaction to identify genetic variations in fetal DNA with a high degree of specificity and sensitivity, which we believe can give patients and their physicians a greater degree of comfort in choosing to forego unnecessary invasive procedures, limiting the resulting risk of spontaneous miscarriage associated with invasive procedures and lowering the total cost to the healthcare system of these procedures. Furthermore, with recent technological advances validated in the SMART study, Panorama leverages artificial intelligence to enable highly accurate results on samples for which a result would otherwise be difficult to determine. Panorama screens for common genetic conditions that affect both high-risk pregnancies, where maternal age is 35 years or older, which we estimate represent approximately 1.0 million of the approximately 5.36 million pregnancies in the United States, and average-risk pregnancies, which we estimate represent approximately 4.36 million pregnancies in the United States.

Panorama is performed on a maternal blood sample and can be performed as early as nine weeks into a pregnancy, which is significantly earlier than traditional methods, such as serum protein measurement, whereby doctors measure the presence and amount of certain hormones in the blood. Panorama starts with a simple blood draw from the mother, either in a doctor’s office, in a laboratory or through a phlebotomist that travels to the patient, and the sample is sent to one of our CLIA-certified and CAP-accredited laboratories for processing. After Panorama generates its result, we provide the doctor or the laboratory with a report showing whether there is a high risk or low risk that abnormalities are present in the fetus.

The analytic and clinical validity of our technology demonstrated in NIPT has been described in more peer-reviewed publications covering more patients than our competitors. The SMART study, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, evaluated the performance of cfDNA screening for aneuploidies T21, T18 and T13, as well as 22q11.2 by tracking birth outcomes in the general population among women who presented clinically and elected Panorama microdeletions and aneuploidy screening as part of their routine care. Over 17,000 aneuploidy cases and over 18,000 22q11.2 deletion syndrome cases were analyzed. In particular, Panorama demonstrated sensitivity of approximately 99%, specificity of over 99.9%, and a PPV of 95% for T21 in the SMART study. Based on a publication in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, Panorama has demonstrated greater than 99% overall sensitivity and greater than 99.9% overall specificity for T21, T18 and T13. Furthermore, a paper published in Obstetrics & Gynecology reported that Panorama had a statistically significant lower false positive rate than other NIPT methods practiced by our U.S. competitors. In the SMART study, Panorama demonstrated sensitivity for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome of 83%, clinical PPV of approximately 53%, and a false positive rate of 0.05% using our updated artificial intelligence algorithm.

Panorama can distinguish between each twin’s DNA, and therefore can determine zygosity, or whether the twins are identical or fraternal, and the fetal sex of each twin. Determining zygosity early in a pregnancy can help guide the management of a pregnancy, as certain monozygotic, or identical twin, pregnancies are at higher risk for various complications such as twin-twin transfusion syndrome, where there is an unequal sharing of blood, and therefore unequal growth, between the twins. Panorama screens twin pregnancies for Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes and, for identical twins, Turner syndrome and 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, among others. In validation studies, Panorama identified identical twins with over 99% sensitivity and specificity and achieved a combined sensitivity of over 99% and specificity of over 99% for Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes in twin pregnancies.

10

Table of Contents

Horizon

Our Horizon carrier screening test helps individuals and couples determine if they are carriers of single-gene variations that cause certain genetic conditions. Depending on the condition, if one or both parents are carriers, it could result in a child affected with the condition. Many people do not know they are a carrier for an inherited genetic condition until they have an affected child. These conditions are often rare and usually there is no family history, and although certain conditions are more common in certain ethnic groups, ethnicity may not be a reliable predictor of carrier status, as people are increasingly of mixed or uncertain ethnicities. The industry’s approach to carrier screening has accordingly evolved over time, from screening targeting specific ethnicities with a higher incidence of screened conditions, to pan-ethnic screening for certain conditions based on incidence and clinical utility, and most recently to expanded screening for many conditions simultaneously.

Horizon was created based on recommended screening guidelines from ACOG, ACMG, and the Victor Center for the Prevention of Jewish Genetic Diseases. Horizon screens for up to 835 inherited conditions across a selection of screening panels, including Cystic Fibrosis, Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, or DMD, Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Fragile X Syndrome and other conditions, and performs with a 99% detection rate for most conditions.

The sample required for Horizon can be obtained simultaneously with the sample required for Panorama, which makes it easier for us to offer, and for patients to take, both tests. Horizon employs various methodologies to analyze the DNA from the individual’s blood or saliva sample to determine if the individual is a carrier for the genetic conditions being screened. These methodologies include next generation sequencing to detect single nucleotide variants, insertions and deletions, and copy number changes, and PCR fragment analysis to detect certain genetic variants.

Fetal Focus

We recently launched Fetal Focus, our single-gene NIPT, or sgNIPT, that screens for 21 single-gene inherited conditions such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy. This cfDNA test screens the fetus by analyzing a sample of a pregnant mother’s blood. When a pregnant patient is identified as a carrier of a recessive single-gene condition, medical guidelines recommend partner testing in order to determine the risk for the baby to be affected by the condition; however, reproductive partners are not always available for, or do not complete, testing. Fetal Focus was designed to address this unmet need. Providers can order this test at the same time as our Horizon test and the test will be automatically run if the Horizon test identifies the patient as a carrier for one of the Fetal Focus conditions; it can also be ordered separately for Horizon carriers at any time without requiring another blood draw or Horizon test.

Other women’s health products

While Panorama and Horizon represent the significant majority of our women’s health revenues, we offer a portfolio of tests addressing reproductive and women’s health.

Our Vistara single-gene NIPT screens for 25 single-gene conditions which affect quality of life, are often associated with cognitive disabilities and could benefit from early medical and/or surgical intervention. The conditions screened by Vistara have a combined incidence of approximately 1 in 600, which is higher than that of Down syndrome as well as Cystic Fibrosis; however, these conditions may otherwise go undetected until after birth or into childhood as traditional NIPTs do not screen for these conditions, prenatal ultrasound findings are not a reliable indicator, and family history is not a good indicator of risk for these conditions, which are commonly caused by new, and not inherited, mutations. Screening for these conditions early in a pregnancy can facilitate early diagnosis, enable patients to be referred to MFMs and other specialists, guide labor and delivery management, and allow families to mobilize resources, ask questions and anticipate future needs. We have received a CE Mark for Vistara from the European Commission. In validation studies, Vistara demonstrated a combined analytical sensitivity and analytical specificity of greater than 99%.

​

11

Table of Contents

Anora, our products of conception, or POC, test, analyzes miscarriage tissue from women who have experienced one or more pregnancy losses to determine whether there was an underlying chromosomal reason for the loss. Anora can detect trisomy, triploidy, extra or missing chromosome pieces, and uniparental disomy. The Anora test is helpful to obstetricians, gynecologists and IVF physicians in supporting their patients’ reproductive goals. Anora can help couples understand the likelihood of another miscarriage, their future reproductive options, and whether there are any steps that could help them avoid a miscarriage in future pregnancies.

Empower, our hereditary cancer screening test, can lead to earlier detection of cancer, identify cancer risk-reducing strategies, inform surgical and therapeutic decisions following a cancer diagnosis, and provide an opportunity to notify family members who may be at similar risk for hereditary cancer. We sell this test through both our women’s health and oncology commercial channels.

Organ Health

Prospera

Our Prospera test is used to assess active rejection in patients who have undergone solid organ transplantation by measuring the fraction and quantity of dd-cfDNA in the recipient’s blood, which can spike relative to background cfDNA when the transplanted organ is injured due to immune rejection. The current tools for assessing organ transplant rejection are either invasive (biopsies) or inaccurate (serum creatinine for kidney transplants, for example), resulting in an unmet need for better diagnostic tools to monitor for allograft rejection and improve patient management and outcomes. Many patients are still subjected to unnecessary biopsies, while other patients remain undiagnosed in the case of subclinical rejection, which can increase the risk of graft failure. Our Prospera test is designed for use by physicians to help identify early signals of active rejection to enable earlier follow-up testing, treatment, and management decisions, and thereby potentially lowering the overall costs associated with transplant care and improving graft survival. Based on our internal estimates, we believe the total addressable market in the United States for tests such as ours that assess kidney, heart and lung transplant rejection is over $3.8 billion.

Our original clinical validation study for Prospera Kidney, conducted in collaboration with the University of California, San Francisco, a recognized leader in transplantation care, and published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, demonstrated 89% sensitivity in detecting active rejection, with an AUC of 0.87 and NPV of 95%, based on a cutoff of 1% dd-cfDNA. The assay performed particularly well in detecting both T-cell mediated rejection, or TCMR, and antibody mediated rejection, or ABMR. Subsequent publications have shown consistent strong performance of the Prospera Kidney test, including the results of a large, multi-center prospective PROspera Kidney Transplant ACTIVE Rejection Assessment Registry (ProActive) study published in Transplantation. In that study, our test detected rejection via elevated dd-cfDNA levels up to five months before biopsy-proven ABMR and up to two months before bioipsy-proven TCMR, while serum creatinine levels were not significantly elevated prior to biopsy-proven rejection, demonstrating the value of the Prospera Kidney test as a leading indicator for rejection that can provide opportunities for earlier interventions and management as a surveillance tool. The Prospera Kidney test was also the first to incorporate a two-threshold algorithm that provides a result based on both dd-cfDNA donor fraction and donor quantity score, or DQS, which is the calculated amount of dd-cfDNA. Prospera Kidney with DQS further enhances test performance over donor fraction alone. The Prospera Kidney test is covered by Medicare for all kidney transplant recipients, including those with multiple kidney transplants.

A significant number of heart transplant patients experience acute rejection in their first year – approximately 25% of recipients aged 18 to 34, and approximately 15% of recipients aged 65 or older, who received a transplant in 2022 experienced acute rejection in their first year. Our Prospera Heart test identifies both antibody mediated rejection, or AMR, and acute cellular rejection, or ACR. The performance of the Prospera Heart test has been consistently strong in multiple publications, including the most recent 2025 publication in the American Journal of Transplantation, where Prospera Heart with DQS performed with an AUC of 0.881, NPV of 98.5%, and sensitivity of 86.5% in detecting both AMR and ACR; furthermore, the addition of DQS as a two-threshold algorithm reduced false positive results by 37%. The Prospera Heart test has also demonstrated strong performance in detecting rejection in pediatric heart transplant recipients, with an AUC of 0.83 in pediatric patients in a study published in Pediatric Transplantation. The Prospera Heart test is covered by Medicare for heart transplant patients.

12

Table of Contents

Lung transplantation has a five-year survival rate of approximately 60%, and chronic lung allograft dysfunction, or CLAD, is a leading cause of death beyond the first year, affecting close to 50% of recipients by five years post-transplant. Because there are no known effective therapies for CLAD, a critical part of post-transplant management is identifying, avoiding, and treating known risk factors for CLAD, in particular acute rejection. Our Prospera Lung test exhibited strong performance in our clinical validation study, published in Transplant Direct, distinguishing antibody mediated and acute cellular rejection from stable patients with an AUC of 0.91, as well as distinguishing organ injury – including acute rejection, chronic rejection and infection (which can be more challenging) – from stable patients with an AUC of 0.76. The test is covered by Medicare for use in the surveillance setting for lung transplant patients, including for single lung transplant recipients in the surveillance setting.

As with oncology, we are continuing to generate data in multiple clinical studies designed to demonstrate clinical utility and other benefits of our Prospera test.

Renasight

Chronic kidney disease, or CKD, is estimated to affect more than 37 million people in the United States, and approximately one in five patients with CKD has an underlying genetic cause of their disease. Renasight is our kidney gene panel test to determine if there may be a genetic cause for an individual’s CKD, or increased hereditary risk for kidney disease due to family history. The test uses a blood or saliva sample to test 397 genes associated with CKD, ranging from common inherited kidney disorders to more rare conditions. Results from our Renasight test may provide valuable information to help manage CKD in a patient, such as identifying the cause of the disease and helping to predict its progression, informing more tailored interventions and treatments, or providing information to family members who may also be at risk for kidney disease.

We have published initial results from our Renasight Clinical Application, Review, and Evaluation (RenaCARE) study assessing the frequency and impact of genetic testing within the CKD population. Over 20% of patients in the study had a positive genetic finding, half of whom received a new or reclassified diagnosis and one-third of whom had a change in treatment plan.

Constellation

Our Constellation software forms the core of our cloud-based distribution model. Through this model, we have been able to expand access to our molecular and bioinformatics capabilities worldwide, enabling laboratories in the United States and internationally, under a license from us, to run the molecular workflows themselves and then access our computation-intensive bioinformatics algorithms through Constellation, which runs in the cloud, to analyze the results. We also leverage Constellation to perform our internal commercial laboratory activities and research and development of our products.

We have received CE Marks from the European Commission for our Constellation software and for the key reagents that our laboratory licensees use to run their NIPT test prior to accessing our Constellation software. These CE Marks enable us to offer Constellation in the European Union and other countries that accept a CE Mark. We are pursuing other regulatory approvals, as needed, to allow the international roll out of Constellation in regions that do not accept a CE Mark.

Commercial Capabilities

Within each of oncology, women’s health, and organ health, we provide specialty testing supported by integrated commercial, medical, and operational capabilities intended to support a consistent experience for clinicians and patients and to facilitate integration of testing into routine clinical practice.

​

13

Table of Contents

Our commercial organization includes direct sales representatives and medical affairs professionals who engage physicians, physician practices, integrated health systems, transplant centers, oncology clinics, nephrologists, IVF centers, and other healthcare providers. These teams are aligned by specialty to support focused clinical engagement within each of our three medical areas of focus. We also collaborate with pharmaceutical companies and other partners on research, clinical development, and commercialization initiatives related to our testing platforms and related analytical capabilities.

In addition to direct sales engagement, we market to healthcare providers through professional channels, including advertisements in peer-reviewed journals, educational webinars, medical conferences and tradeshows, and targeted digital outreach. While we do not sell directly to patients, we conduct educational initiatives intended to increase awareness of genetic testing and to support informed discussions between patients and their healthcare providers. Our marketing and medical affairs teams engage with key opinion leaders across oncology, women’s health, and organ health to support clinical education and dissemination of scientific data.

Internationally, our products are offered in over 80 countries, primarily through laboratory and distribution partners that address local regulatory, reimbursement, and commercial requirements. Within the United States, we combine direct commercial engagement with laboratory and distribution partnerships to support access to our tests.

Our strategy is to offer portfolios within each medical specialty we serve, supported by integrated ordering, specimen collection, reporting, and patient and clinician support services. This approach is intended to support clinical workflows and enable providers to incorporate testing into care pathways, as appropriate.

Enhanced User Experience

We provide services and digital capabilities intended to simplify the testing process, reduce administrative burden, and support clinical decision-making across our oncology, women’s health, and organ health portfolios.

NateraCore

NateraCore is our platform designed to support the patient and provider experience. Through this platform, we provide educational resources, information regarding insurance coverage and financial assistance programs, test ordering and specimen tracking capabilities, results reporting, and information regarding next steps, as applicable to a particular patient or test. These tools are intended to support coordination of testing-related activities within existing clinical workflows and provide a consistent experience across our oncology, women’s health, and organ health portfolios.

Phlebotomy Services

We support our testing portfolio with a phlebotomy network designed to improve patient access. Our network includes mobile phlebotomy services, patient service centers with walk-in and scheduled appointment options, and access to additional independent draw sites through established partnerships. These services are intended to facilitate specimen collection in a manner that aligns with patient and provider preferences.

EMR Integration

We offer integration with certain Electronic Medical Record, or EMR, systems to enable providers to order tests, receive results, and manage related documentation within their clinical systems, subject to applicable technical and contractual requirements. These integrations are intended to reduce manual processes and support incorporation of testing into clinical workflows.

14

Table of Contents

Patient Affordability and Access Programs

We maintain programs intended to support patient access across our portfolios. Our tests are supported by payer contracts in key specialties. For eligible patients who experience financial hardship or coverage challenges, we offer financial assistance programs designed to help reduce out-of-pocket costs.

Genetic Counselor Resources

We employ board-certified genetic counselors who provide educational sessions to patients before and after testing, as appropriate, and who support providers with interpretation of results and clinical questions.

Competition

The markets in which we operate are characterized by innovation and rapid change, and we primarily face competition from various companies that develop and commercialize molecular diagnostic tests in women’s health, oncology, and organ transplant rejection.

Our competitors in the NIPT space include BGI; BillionToOne Inc.; Fulgent Genetics; Illumina, through its subsidiary Verinata; Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, or Labcorp; Myriad Genetics, Inc.; Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, or Quest; and Revvity Inc. We also compete against companies providing carrier screening tests such as BillionToOne Inc.; Fulgent Genetics; Labcorp; Myriad Genetics, Inc.; and Quest. Each of these companies offers comprehensive carrier screening panels.

In the field of oncology, we compete with various companies that offer or seek to offer competing solutions, such as BillionToOne Inc.; Caris Life Sciences, Inc.; Exact Sciences Corp.; Guardant Health, Inc.; Personalis, Inc.; Quest; and Tempus Labs, Inc.

In organ health, our primary competitor is CareDx, Inc.

We expect additional competition as other established and emerging companies enter these markets, including through business combinations, and as new tests and technologies are introduced. These competitors could have greater technological, financial, reputational and market access resources than us. We believe the principal competitive factors in our molecular diagnostic testing markets include the following:

●test performance, as demonstrated in clinical and analytical studies and clinical trials as well as in commercial experience;

​

●comprehensiveness of coverage and ease of use, including user experience for both patients and providers;

​

●value of product offerings, including pricing and impact on other healthcare spending;

​

●scope and extent of reimbursement and payer coverage;

​

●effectiveness of sales and marketing efforts;

​

●breadth of distribution of products and partnership base;

​

●reputation among patients and providers for development and introduction of new, innovative products;

​

●operational execution, including test turn-around time and test failures;

​

●key opinion leader support; and

15

Table of Contents

​

●brand awareness.

We believe that we compare favorably against our competitors based on various key differentiators, including in particular:

●our core technology, which can be applied across a range of conditions and disease types with a high degree of specificity and sensitivity, and our continued innovation resulting in new products and product enhancements;

​

●our continued investment in generating scientific data through clinical trials and publication in peer-reviewed studies;

​

●our strong commercial teams; and

​

●our user experience, including ease of use for patients through offerings such as mobile phlebotomy and for physicians through ordering efficiencies and EMR integrations, and patient and provider educational materials.

Intellectual Property

Our success and ability to compete depend in part on securing and preserving enforceable patent, trade secret, trademark and other intellectual property rights; operating without having competitors infringe, misappropriate or otherwise circumvent these rights; operating without infringing the proprietary rights of others; and obtaining and maintaining licenses for technology development and/or product commercialization. As of December 31, 2025, we held over 650 issued or pending U.S. and foreign patents. Our patents and patent applications relate generally to molecular diagnostics, and more specifically to biochemical and analytical techniques for obtaining and analyzing genetic information to detect genetic abnormalities in relatively small complex samples, such as cell-free fetal DNA or circulating tumor DNA. We intend to seek patent protection as we develop new technologies and products in this area.

We are or have recently been engaged in patent infringement lawsuits and other intellectual property disputes against various competitors in each of the industries in which we operate, some of which are infringement claims against us and some of which are claims we have asserted against third parties, as discussed in “Note 10—Commitments and Contingencies—Legal Proceedings” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. We may become subject to and/or initiate future intellectual property litigation as our product portfolio, and the level of competition in our industry segments, grow. The field of molecular diagnostics is complex and rapidly evolving, and we expect that we and others in our industry will continue to be subject to third-party infringement claims.

​

16

Table of Contents

Reimbursement

We receive reimbursement for our tests from third-party payers, which includes commercial health insurers and federal health care programs (as defined under 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(f)). Laboratory tests, as with most other health care services, are classified for reimbursement purposes under a coding system known as Current Procedure Terminology, or CPT, which we and our customers must use to bill and receive reimbursement for our diagnostic tests. There are CPT codes associated with the particular tests that we provide to the patient, including for aneuploidies and microdeletions in NIPT, and for expanded carrier screening tests. Once the American Medical Association, or AMA, establishes a CPT code, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, establishes payment levels and coverage rules under Medicare, while state Medicaid programs and commercial health plans establish rates and coverage rules independently in accordance with applicable rules. As such, the coverage and reimbursement rates for our diagnostic tests vary by third-party payer. CMS has established a pricing benchmark of $802 for aneuploidy and microdeletions testing, and approximately $2,450 for expanded carrier screening testing.

The Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, or PAMA, introduced a multi-year pricing program and new payment methodology to calculate the rates for tests listed under the CLFS that are reimbursable by Medicare Part B. Under the payment methodology, the Medicare Part B CLFS payment rate is derived from a volume-weighted median of private payer rates for tests. This requires an “applicable laboratory” to report to CMS the private payment rates and the volume of tests associated with each payment rate for a specific data reporting period. Accordingly, we are required under PAMA to report to CMS the private payment rates and volume of our tests which are covered under Medicare Part B; however, the PAMA reporting requirements were suspended in 2021 and have continued to be delayed, most recently until 2027, which in turn has not resulted in rate reductions under the Medicare Part B CLFS. PAMA authorizes CMS to impose civil monetary penalties – up to $13,295 per day in 2024 – for each failure to report or each misrepresentation or omission in reporting of required information.

CMS has granted Medicare Part B coverage and Advanced Diagnostic Laboratory Test (ADLT) status, which has separate reporting and payment requirements under PAMA, for our Signatera test. New ADLTs are paid at a rate equal to their actual list charge, or publicly available rate, during an initial period of three calendar quarters. Thereafter, payment for a new ADLT is based on the private payor rates reported to CMS pursuant to PAMA using the same weighted median methodology described above.

We currently submit for reimbursement using CPT codes based on the guidance of coding experts and outside legal counsel. There is a risk that these codes may be rejected or withdrawn or that third-party payers will seek refunds of amounts that they claim were inappropriately billed to a specific CPT code or an incorrect diagnosis code. We do not currently have a specific CPT code assigned for all of our tests, and there is a risk that we may not be able to obtain specific codes for such tests, or if obtained, we may not be able to negotiate favorable rates for one or more of these codes. In particular, while we have obtained a CPT code for microdeletions and CMS has set a price for microdeletions testing, we have experienced low average reimbursement rates for microdeletions testing under this code, and we expect that this code will continue to cause our microdeletions reimbursement to remain low, at least in the near term, because third-party payers are declining to reimburse under the code or reimbursing at a low rate. The reimbursement rates for our broader Horizon screening panel have also declined as a result of the CPT code becoming effective in 2019, as carrier screening tests that had previously been reimbursed on a per-condition basis may be reimbursed as a combined single panel instead of as multiple individual tests.

We continue to believe that growing recognition from professional societies of the importance of microdeletions testing, combined with the performance of our microdeletions test and additional validation data from our SMART study on the sensitivity and specificity of our tests, will help drive broader reimbursement in the future.

​

17

Table of Contents

Reimbursement by third-party payers may depend on a number of factors, including the payer’s determination that tests using our technologies are: not experimental or investigational; medically necessary; demonstrated to lead to improved patient outcomes; appropriate for the specific patient; cost-saving or cost-effective; supported by peer-reviewed medical journals; and included in clinical guidelines. In making coverage determinations, third-party payers often rely on clinical guidelines issued by professional societies. NIPT has received positive coverage determinations for high-risk pregnancies and in such instances are reimbursed by most commercial health insurers, including United Healthcare, Aetna, Elevance Health (previously known as Anthem), Humana, Cigna and others. In recent years the reimbursement by third-party payers for use of NIPT for average-risk pregnancies has improved, as most professional societies now generally acknowledge that NIPT is the most sensitive screening option for, and/or are generally supportive of the use of NIPT in, average-risk pregnancies and high-risk pregnancies. Most commercial health insurers, as well as an increasing number of state Medicaid programs, have a positive coverage determination for NIPT for average-risk pregnancies.

As of December 31, 2025, we and our laboratory distribution partners had in-network contracts with health plans that accounted for close to 250 million covered lives in the United States. Our target markets for each of women’s health, oncology and organ health represent a smaller subset of these covered lives, because our markets exclude certain populations who would not be users of our tests (for example, our target market for NIPT excludes men, children and post-menopausal women).

Government Regulations

Our business is subject to and impacted by extensive and frequently changing laws and regulations in the United States (at both the federal and state levels) and internationally. Some of these laws and regulations are particular to our laboratory business while others relate to conducting business generally (e.g., export controls laws, U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar laws of other jurisdictions). Also, we are subject to inspections, audits and other inquiries by certain federal and state governmental agencies. Set forth below are highlights of certain key regulatory frameworks applicable to our business.

FDA

In the United States, medical devices are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDC Act, and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations. The laws and regulations govern, among other things, medical device development, testing, labeling, storage, premarket clearance, de novo classification or premarket approval, post-market requirements, labeling, advertising and promotion and product sales and distribution. Unless subject to an exemption, to be commercially distributed in the United States, medical devices must receive from the FDA prior to marketing, clearance of a 510(k) premarket notification submission, grant of a request for de novo classification, or approval of an application for premarket approval, or PMA.

An in vitro diagnostic product, or IVD, is a type of medical device that is intended for use in the diagnosis of diseases or conditions, including a determination of the state of health, in order to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease or its sequelae. IVDs comprise reagents, instruments, and systems intended for use in the collection, preparation and examination of specimens from the human body. IVDs can be used to detect the presence of certain chemicals, genetic information or other biomarkers related to health or disease. IVDs include tests for disease prediction, prognosis, diagnosis, and screening (e.g., carrier screening). A subset of IVDs are known as analyte specific reagents, or ASRs. An ASR is a single reagent (e.g., antibody, specific receptor protein, ligand, nucleic acid sequence) that, through specific binding or chemical reaction with substances in a specimen, is intended for use in a diagnostic application for the identification and quantification of an individual chemical substance in biological specimens. Most ASRs are exempt from the premarket review processes but must comply with general controls, as described below, including applicable provisions of the quality management system regulation, or QMSR.

​

18

Table of Contents

The FDC Act classifies medical devices into one of three categories based on the risks associated with the device and the level of control necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Class I devices are deemed to be low risk and are subject to the fewest regulatory controls. Many Class I devices are exempt from FDA premarket review requirements. Class II devices, including some software products to the extent that they qualify as a device, are deemed to be moderate risk, and generally require 510(k) clearance. Class III devices are generally the highest risk devices and are subject to the highest level of regulatory control to provide reasonable assurance of the device's safety and effectiveness. Class III devices typically require a PMA by the FDA before they are marketed. A clinical trial is almost always required to support a PMA application and is sometimes required for 510(k) clearance. All clinical studies of investigational devices must be conducted in compliance with any applicable FDA requirements, including in some cases approval of an investigational device exemption, or IDE, application, as well as with Institutional Review Board requirements. Devices that are exempt from FDA premarket review requirements must nonetheless comply with post-market general controls as described below, unless the FDA has chosen otherwise. Class III devices also include low or moderate risk for which a predicate device cannot be identified, as discussed below.

510(k) clearance pathway. To obtain 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating to the FDA’s satisfaction that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device, which can be a previously 510(k)-cleared device, a previously granted request for de novo classification, or a device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 for which the FDA has not called for submission of a PMA application. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance pathway usually takes from three to 12 months from submission, but it can take longer, particularly for a novel type of product.

PMA pathway. The PMA pathway requires valid scientific evidence demonstrating to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. The PMA pathway is costly, lengthy, and uncertain. A PMA application must provide extensive preclinical and clinical trial data as well as information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing, and labeling. As part of its PMA review process, the FDA will typically inspect the manufacturer's facilities for compliance with QMSR requirements, which impose extensive testing, control, documentation, and other quality assurance procedures. The PMA review process typically takes one to three years from submission but can take longer.

De novo pathway. If no predicate device can be identified, a device is automatically classified as Class III, requiring a PMA application. However, the FDA on its own initiative or at the request of a manufacturer can reclassify as low- or moderate-risk device for which there is no predicate through the de novo classification process. If the device is reclassified as Class II, the FDA will identify “special controls” that the manufacturer must implement, which may include labeling, performance standards or other requirements. Subsequent applicants can rely upon the de novo product as a predicate when submitting a 510(k) premarket notification, unless the FDA exempts subsequent devices from the need for a 510(k). The de novo route is intended to be less burdensome than the PMA process. The de novo route has historically been used for many IVD products.

Post-market general controls. After a device, including a device exempt from FDA premarket review, is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements apply. These include: the QSR, labeling regulations, registration and listing, the Medical Device Reporting regulation (which requires that manufacturers report to the FDA if their device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if it were to recur), and the Reports of Corrections and Removals regulation (which requires manufacturers to report to the FDA corrective actions made to products in the field, or removal of products once in the field if such actions were initiated to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FDC Act that presents a risk to health). Some types of removals and corrections are considered by FDA to be product recalls and subject to additional requirements.

19

Table of Contents

The FDA enforces compliance with its requirements through inspection and market surveillance. If the FDA finds a violation, it can institute a wide variety of actions, ranging from issuing a Form 483 Notice of Inspectional Observations or sending an untitled or public warning letter to enforcement actions such as fines, injunctions, and civil penalties; recall or seizure of products; operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production; refusing requests for 510(k) clearance, de novo classification, or PMA approval of new products; withdrawing PMAs already granted; and criminal prosecution. For additional information, see “Risk Factors—Reimbursement and Regulatory Risks Related to Our Business.”

Research use only. Research use only, or RUO, products are exempt from FDA medical device requirements provided their manufacturers comply with specified labeling and restrictions on distribution and promotion. The products must bear the statement: “For Research Use Only. Not for Use in Diagnostic Procedures.” Manufacturers of RUO products cannot make any claims related to safety, effectiveness or diagnostic utility, and RUO products cannot be intended by the manufacturer for clinical diagnostic use. An RUO product promoted for diagnostic use may be viewed by the FDA as adulterated and misbranded under the FDC Act and the manufacturer of such product could be subject to FDA enforcement activities. Our LDTs use instruments and reagents labeled as RUO.

Laboratory-developed tests. The FDA considers LDTs to be tests that are designed, developed, validated and used within a single laboratory certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, or CLIA. The FDA historically took the position that it had the authority to regulate such tests as medical devices under the FDC Act but generally exercised enforcement discretion with respect to most LDTs and did not require clearance, de novo classification, or approval of most LDTs prior to marketing.

In May 2024, the FDA published a final rule amending the definition of an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device to include LDTs, and classifying LDTs as medical devices subject to FDA regulation. Under the final rule, all LDTs, unless subject to a specific exemption, would have been subject to premarket authorization requirements (510(k), de novo classification, or PMA), and laboratories performing LDTs would have needed to comply with postmarket registration and listing, medical device reporting, correction, removal and recall, complaint handling, labeling, investigational device, and quality system requirements.

In March 2025, a federal district court vacated the FDA final rule, thereby cancelling the rulemaking’s associated requirements. The court held that LDTs do not meet the definition of a medical device under the FDC Act and the FDA therefore lacks jurisdiction to regulate them. The court directed FDA to rescind the final rule, which occurred in September 2025. The FDA has not indicated how it will interpret the court ruling or whether it will seek a different regulatory approach with respect to LDTs or components thereof.

Over the years, legislative proposals addressing the FDA’s oversight of LDTs have been introduced in Congress. In June 2021, Congress introduced the Verifying Accurate, Leading-edge IVCT Development Act, or VALID Act, to establish a new risk-based regulatory framework for in vitro clinical tests, or IVCTs, including IVDs, LDTs, collection devices and instruments used with such tests. This legislation was re-introduced in 2023 but was not enacted. The VALID Act was again re-introduced in 2025, indicating that there remains debate about whether and how LDTs should be regulated in the U.S.

Clinical decision support software. Certain software is excluded from FDA regulation, including clinical decision support, or CDS, software that meets certain criteria. Based on an FDA guidance document, the CDS exemption may not apply to Constellation. It is unclear how the FDA will apply the guidance document to our currently marketed software and to software that we may develop in the future.

20

Table of Contents

Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 and State Regulation

As a clinical laboratory, we are required to hold certain federal and state licenses, certifications or permits to conduct our business. As to federal certifications, in 1988, Congress passed the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, or CLIA, establishing more rigorous quality standards for all commercial laboratories that perform testing on human specimens for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of disease or the assessment of the health or impairment of human beings. CLIA requires such laboratories to be certified by the federal government and mandates compliance with various operational, personnel, facility, administration, quality and proficiency testing requirements intended to ensure the accuracy, reliability and timeliness of patient test results. CLIA certification is also a prerequisite to be eligible to bill state and federal health care programs, as well as many commercial third-party payers, for laboratory testing services.

Our laboratories located in Austin, Texas; San Carlos, California; and Boulder, Colorado are CLIA certified, and must comply with all applicable CLIA regulations and standards. If a clinical laboratory is found to be out of compliance with CLIA standards, CMS may impose sanctions; suspend, limit or revoke the laboratory’s CLIA certificate (and prohibit the owner, operator or laboratory director from owning, operating, or directing a laboratory for two or more years following license revocation); subject the laboratory to a directed plan of correction, on-site monitoring, civil monetary penalties, civil actions for injunctive relief, criminal penalties; or suspension or exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

CLIA provides that a state may adopt laboratory licensure requirements and regulations that are more stringent than those under federal law, and requires compliance with such laws and regulations. A number of states have implemented their own more stringent laboratory regulatory requirements. State laws may require the laboratory to obtain state licensure and/or laboratory personnel to meet certain qualifications and obtain professional licensure, specify certain quality control procedures or facility requirements, or prescribe record maintenance requirements. Moreover, several states impose the same or similar state requirements on out-of-state laboratory testing specimens collected or received from, or test results reported back to, residents within that state. Therefore, we are required to meet certain laboratory licensing requirements for those states in which we offer services or from which we accept specimens, and that have adopted laboratory regulations beyond CLIA. For more information on state licensing requirements, see “—California Laboratory Licensing”, “—New York Laboratory Licensing,” and “—Other State Laboratory Licensing Laws.”

Our laboratories located in Austin, Texas; San Carlos, California; and Boulder, Colorado have each also been accredited by the College of American Pathologists, or CAP, which means that our laboratories have been certified as following CAP standards and guidelines in operating the laboratory facility and in performing tests that ensure the quality of our test results.

California Laboratory Licensing

In addition to federal certification requirements for laboratories under CLIA, we are required under California law to maintain a California state license for our San Carlos, California and Austin, Texas clinical laboratories, and to comply with California state laboratory laws and regulations, because our San Carlos facility is located in, and both facilities test specimens originating from, California. Similar to the federal CLIA regulations, the California state laboratory laws and regulations establish standards for the operation of a clinical laboratory and performance of test services, including the education and experience requirements of the laboratory director and personnel (including requirements for documentation of competency), equipment validations, and quality management practices. All testing personnel must maintain a California state license or be supervised by licensed personnel, and our laboratory director must maintain an additional license issued by the California Department of Public Health, or CDPH.

​

21

Table of Contents

Clinical laboratories are subject to both routine and complaint-initiated on-site inspections by the state. If a clinical laboratory is found to be out of compliance with California laboratory standards, the CDPH, may suspend, restrict or revoke the California state laboratory license to operate the clinical laboratory (and exclude persons or entities from owning, operating, or directing a laboratory for two years following license revocation), assess civil money penalties, and/or impose specific corrective action plans, among other sanctions. Clinical laboratories must also provide notice to CDPH of any changes in the ownership, directorship, name or location of the laboratory. Failure to provide such notification may result in revocation of the state license and sanctions under the CLIA certificate. Any revocation of a CLIA certificate or exclusion from participation in Medicare or Medicaid programs may also result in suspension of the California state laboratory license.

New York Laboratory Licensing

Because we test specimens in our Austin, Texas and San Carlos, California laboratories originating from, and return test results to, New York State, both of our laboratories are required to obtain a New York State laboratory permit and comply with New York State laboratory laws and regulations. We maintain a valid permit in the State of New York for the respective molecular genetic testing services furnished by each of our Austin and San Carlos laboratories. The New York State laboratory laws, regulations and rules are equal to or more stringent than the CLIA regulations and establish standards for the operation of a clinical laboratory and performance of test services, including education and experience requirements of a laboratory director and personnel, physical requirements of a laboratory facility, equipment validations, and quality management practices. The laboratory director(s) must maintain a Certificate of Qualification issued by the New York State Department of Health, or DOH, in the permitted test categories.

Our clinical laboratories are subject to proficiency testing and on-site survey inspections conducted by the Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, or CLEP, under the DOH. If a laboratory is found to be out of compliance with New York’s CLEP standards, the DOH, may suspend, limit, revoke or annul the New York laboratory permit, censure the holder of the license or assess civil money penalties. Statutory or regulatory noncompliance may result in a laboratory’s operator, owners and/or laboratory director being found guilty of a misdemeanor under New York law. Clinical laboratories must also provide notice to the CLEP of any changes in ownership, directorship, name or location of the laboratory. Failure to provide such notification may result in revocation of the state license and sanctions under the CLIA certificate. Any revocation of a CLIA certificate or exclusion from participation in the Medicare or Medicaid programs may result in suspension of the New York laboratory permit.

The DOH also must approve each LDT before the test is offered to patients located in New York. Each of our Austin and San Carlos clinical laboratories has received approval from New York’s CLEP to offer our tests that are performed in those locations.

Other State Laboratory Licensing Laws

In addition to New York and California, certain other states require licensing of out-of-state laboratories under certain circumstances. We have obtained licenses in the states that we believe require us to do so based on our current operations, and believe we are in compliance with applicable state laboratory licensing laws, including Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. The State of Texas does not impose state licensure or registration requirements upon an independent laboratory facility or collection station outside of maintaining CLIA certification.

Potential sanctions for violation of state statutes and regulations can include significant monetary fines, the rejection of license applications, the suspension or loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations, and in some cases criminal penalties, which could harm our business. CLIA does not preempt state laws that have established laboratory quality standards that are more stringent than federal law.

22

Table of Contents

State Genetic Testing and Privacy Laws

Many states have implemented genetic testing and privacy laws imposing specific patient consent requirements and protecting test results. Under some state laws, we are prohibited from conducting genetic tests without appropriate documentation of patient (or parental/guardian) consent from the physician ordering the test. As discussed in more detail in “Risk Factors—Reimbursement and Regulatory Risks Related to our Business—If the validity of an informed consent from a patient intake for Panorama or our other tests is challenged, we could be precluded from billing for such testing, forced to stop performing such tests, or required to repay amounts previously received, which would adversely affect our business and financial results,” while we rely on physicians to obtain the required patient consent to perform genetic testing, the regulatory burden may be deemed to be our responsibility and such consents, or our compliance with applicable laws and regulations, could be challenged. Requirements of these laws and penalties for violations vary widely from state to state.

HIPAA and Other Privacy Laws

The privacy and security regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, establish uniform standards governing the conduct of certain electronic healthcare transactions and require certain entities, called covered entities, to comply with standards that include the privacy and security of protected health information, or PHI. HIPAA further requires business associates of covered entities—independent contractors or agents of covered entities that have access to PHI in connection with providing a service to or on behalf of a covered entity—to enter into business associate agreements with the covered entity and to safeguard the covered entity’s PHI against improper use and disclosure. In addition, certain of HIPAA’s privacy and security standards are directly applicable to business associates.

As a covered entity and as a business associate of other covered entities (with whom we have therefore entered into business associate agreements), we have certain obligations regarding the use and disclosure of any PHI that may be provided to us, and we could incur significant liability if we or our business associates fail to meet such obligations. Among other things, HITECH imposes civil and criminal penalties against covered entities and business associates for noncompliance with privacy and security requirements, which may include fines up to $250,000 per violation and/or imprisonment, and authorizes states’ attorneys general to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. While HIPAA does not create a private right of action allowing individuals to file suit in civil court for violations of HIPAA, its standards have been used as the basis for duty of care cases in state civil suits such as those for negligence or recklessness in the misuse or breach of PHI. In addition, HIPAA mandates that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, conduct periodic compliance audits of health care providers, such as us, and their business associates for compliance with the HIPAA privacy and security standards. HIPAA also tasks HHS with establishing a methodology whereby harmed individuals who were the victims of breaches of unsecured PHI may receive a percentage of the civil monetary penalty paid by the violator.

As noted above, we are required to comply with HIPAA standards promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS. First, we must comply with HIPAA’s standards for electronic transactions, which establish standards for common healthcare transactions, such as claims information, plan eligibility, payment information and the use of electronic signatures. We must also comply with the standards for the privacy of individually identifiable health information, which limit the use and disclosure of most paper and oral communications, as well as those in electronic form, regarding an individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition, or relating to the provision of healthcare to the individual or payment for that healthcare, if the individual can or may be identified by such information. Additionally, we must comply with HIPAA’s security standards, which require us to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of all electronic PHI that we create, receive, maintain or transmit, to protect against reasonably anticipated threats or hazards to the security of such information, and to protect such information from unauthorized use or disclosure.

As a health care provider, we are subject to Section 4004 of the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, and regulations promulgated by HHS related to patient access to electronic PHI, or EHI, to promote interoperability and to ensure the access, exchange, or use of EHI.

23

Table of Contents

Various U.S. states have implemented personal privacy laws that regulate different information than HIPAA. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act, or CCPA, applies to personal information of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents. The CCPA requires covered businesses to make certain disclosures, afford consumer rights relating to the access to, deletion of, and sharing of personal information collected by certain businesses and their service providers, implement contractual safeguards for service providers, conduct data privacy impact assessments, or DPIAs, for certain processing activities, and offer opt-outs relating to online advertising, processing of certain sensitive personal data, and automated decision-making. The CCPA provides for fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. CalPrivacy, one of the primary regulators of the CCPA, has been active in investigating and fining companies for alleged CCPA non-compliance.

Numerous states have recently enacted comprehensive privacy laws that, while largely following a consistent administrative model, collectively increase our operational complexity and require ongoing adjustments to our data governance. Additional states are expected to implement privacy laws in 2026. To the extent that we collect data that does not fall within an exception to these privacy laws, we may be required to make specific disclosures in privacy notices, take additional compliance steps such as DPIAs, and afford residents with certain rights concerning their personal information, which may require us to change the way we conduct our business or provide our products and services. These state laws allow for statutory fines for non-compliance.

Also, certain laws and regulations have been enacted to govern obligations relating to health data that does not constitute PHI. For example, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, which protects the confidentiality of individually identifiable medical information obtained by health care providers and their contractors, is much broader than HIPAA and the data protected is also broader than HIPAA; and the Washington My Health My Data Act governs certain consumer health data not covered by HIPAA, including information reasonably linked to a consumer’s past, present, or future physical or mental health status. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission’s Health Breach Notification Rule requires that entities report certain security breaches not subject to the HIPAA breach notification rule.

Additionally, we may be required under various data privacy and security laws and other obligations to obtain certain consents to process personal information. For example, some of our data processing practices may be challenged under wiretapping laws if we obtain consumer information from third parties through various methods, including chatbot and session replay providers, or via third-party marketing pixels. These practices may be subject to increased challenges by class action plaintiffs. Our inability or failure to obtain consent for these practices could result in adverse consequences, including class action litigation and mass arbitration demands.

In addition, security laws are in place that require companies to implement measures to secure personal data. For example, Massachusetts law requires that any company that obtains personal information of any resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts implement and maintain a written information security program that adequately protects such information from unauthorized use or disclosure. Most states require businesses that collect personally identifiable information to implement reasonable security measures to protect that information.

There are also comprehensive foreign privacy and security laws and regulations that impose robust requirements on the processing of personal information, including health information. In particular, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, became effective in 2018. The GDPR applies not only to organizations within the EU, but also applies to organizations outside of the EU, such as Natera, that offer goods or services to EU data subjects or that process personal data of EU data subjects. The GDPR specifies higher potential liabilities for certain data protection violations, and we anticipate that it will result in a greater compliance burden for us as we conduct our business, particularly through our Constellation cloud-based distribution model, in the European Union. Fines for non-compliance can range from the greater of 2% of annual global revenues or €10 million, up to the greater of 4% of annual global revenues or €20 million. In addition, private litigation related to processing of personal information brought by classes of data subjects, or by consumer protection organizations representing their interests, have increased in recent years.

​

24

Table of Contents

As a business that operates both internationally and throughout the United States, any actual or perceived failure to comply with privacy obligations, including unauthorized use or disclosure of personal information, even if it does not constitute PHI, by us or our third-party contractors, including disclosure due to data theft or unauthorized access to our or our third-party contractors’ computer networks, could lead to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation (including class claims) and mass arbitration demands; fines and penalties; disruptions to our business operations; reputational harm; loss of revenue, customers or sales; and other adverse business consequences.

Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Laws

Federal and state governmental authorities scrutinize arrangements between healthcare providers and potential referral sources to ensure that the arrangements are not designed as a mechanism to induce patient care referrals for items or services billable to governmental health care programs and commercial health plans. Law enforcement authorities, courts and Congress have demonstrated a willingness to look behind the formalities of a transaction to determine the underlying purpose of payments between healthcare providers and actual or potential referral sources. The penalties for violations under these laws can be both civil and criminal in nature. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 provides for an annual, automatic adjustment of civil monetary penalties authorized under the Social Security Act to account for inflation, which are published in the Federal Register annually.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it a felony for a provider or supplier, including a laboratory, to knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit or receive remuneration, directly or indirectly, in order to induce business that is reimbursable under any federal health care program. Generally, courts have taken a broad interpretation of the scope of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, holding that the statute may be violated if merely one purpose of a payment arrangement is to induce future referrals. A violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute may result in imprisonment for up to ten years and/or criminal or civil fines – up to $104,330 (or $28,619 for each wrongful act) in 2025 – and exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. Claims submitted in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute may not be paid by a federal health care program, and any person collecting any amounts with respect to any such prohibited claim is obligated to refund such amounts. Although the federal Anti-Kickback Statute applies only to federal health care programs, most U.S. states have passed laws substantially similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute pursuant to which similar types of prohibitions are made applicable to all commercial health plans or any health care services, depending on the state. Conduct which violates the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or similar laws also triggers liability under the Federal False Claims Act, which prohibits knowingly presenting or causing to be presented a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to the U.S. Government and can result in additional penalties and fines.

The HHS Office of Inspector General, or OIG, has issued Special Fraud Alerts on arrangements for the provision of clinical laboratory services and relationships between, among others, laboratories and referral sources. The Special Fraud Alerts set forth a number of practices allegedly engaged in by some clinical laboratories and healthcare providers that raise issues under the federal fraud and abuse laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The OIG emphasized in the Special Fraud Alerts that when one purpose of such arrangements is to induce referrals of government program-reimbursed laboratory testing, both the clinical laboratory and the healthcare provider (e.g., physician) may be liable under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and may be subject to civil and/or criminal prosecution and exclusion from participation in any federal health care programs.

Recognizing that the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is broad and may technically prohibit many innocuous or beneficial arrangements within the healthcare industry, HHS has issued a series of regulatory “safe harbors” for certain payment arrangements which are not considered improper remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute if one can demonstrate compliance with each element of the safe harbor. Although full compliance with these safe harbors ensures protection against prosecution under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the failure of a transaction or arrangement to fit within a specific safe harbor does not necessarily mean that the payment is per se illegal or that prosecution under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute will be pursued.

​

25

Table of Contents

While we believe that we are in compliance with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and similar state fraud and abuse laws that are applicable to us, there can be no assurance that our relationships with physicians, hospitals and other customers or vendors will not be subject to scrutiny or will survive regulatory challenge under such laws. If imposed for any reason, enforcement and sanctions under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or any similar state statute could have a negative effect on our business.

The federal Civil Monetary Penalty Law pertaining to health care fraud and abuse prohibits, among other things, the offer or payment of remuneration to a Medicare beneficiary that the offeror or payer knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary to order or receive a reimbursable item or service from a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier; contracting with an individual or entity that the person knows or should know is excluded from participation in a federal health care program; and knowingly making or causing to be made any false statement, omission, or misrepresentation of a material fact in any application, bid, or contract to participate or enroll as a provider of services or a supplier under a federal health care program. A violation of the federal Civil Monetary Penalty statute may result in maximum civil fines – up to $127,973 in 2025 – plus treble damages and exclusion from participation in any federal health care program.

Because we operate a laboratory facility located in California and licensed by California’s DHS, California law is applicable to our business arrangements. California’s state anti-kickback statutes, Business and Professions Code Section 650 (which applies to all categories of payors) and Insurance Code Section 754, and its Medi-Cal anti-kickback statute, Welfare and Institutions Code Section 14107.2, are analogous to, and have been interpreted by the California Attorney General and California courts in substantially the same way as the federal government and the courts have interpreted, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. A violation of Section 650 is punishable by up to one year of imprisonment, a fine up to $50,000, or both imprisonment and a fine. A violation of Section 14107.2 is punishable by imprisonment and fines of up to $10,000. The California Insurance Code includes similar prohibitions against any consideration for the referral or procurement of patients if a claim is submitted to a commercial insurer, CA Ins. Code § 750, which is punishable by criminal penalties mirroring those that apply to violations of Business and Professions Code Section 650.

Because each of our laboratories holds a New York CLEP permit, we must comply with New York state laboratory statutes and regulations, which include anti-kickback provisions, Public Health Law Section 587, and Medicaid anti-kickback provisions, 18 NYCRR Section 515.2, related to laboratory services. The New York DOH may suspend, limit, revoke or annul the New York laboratory permit or otherwise discipline the permit holder for a violation.

Because we operate a laboratory facility located in Texas, our business arrangements are subject to certain Texas laws. Texas’s primary anti-kickback statute, Texas Patient Solicitation Act (Tex. Occ. Code § 102.001) (which applies to all categories of payors), provides for an exception to any business arrangement that complies with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or any regulation adopted under that law. Even if a business arrangement is compliant with the Texas Patient Solicitation Act, disclosure to the patient is required. A violation of Section 102.001 or 102.006 is punishable by civil penalties (up to $10,000 per violation). The Texas Medicaid anti-kickback laws, 1 TAC 371.1669, cross-references the Texas Patient Solicitation Act and include other prohibited self-referrals that are grounds for enforcement and sanctions. The Texas Insurance Code includes criminal penalties for similar prohibitions related to improper referral or procurement of patients if a claim is submitted to a commercial insurer.

In addition to the requirements that are discussed above, there are other healthcare fraud and abuse laws that could have an impact on our business.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits a person from knowingly submitting or causing to be submitted false claims or making a false record or statement in order to secure payment by the federal government. Conduct which violates another fraud and abuse law identified in this section may also result in liability under the federal False Claims Act as a result of the submission of claims pursuant to a prohibited payment arrangement. In addition to actions initiated by the government itself, the federal False Claims Act authorizes actions to be brought on behalf of the federal government by a private party having knowledge of the alleged fraud (sometimes referred to as a “whistleblower”) under a qui tam complaint.

26

Table of Contents

Because qui tam complaints are initially filed under seal in federal court, the action may be pending for some time before the defendant is even aware of the action. If the government is ultimately successful in obtaining redress in the matter or if the private party plaintiff succeeds in obtaining redress without the government’s involvement, then the private party plaintiff will receive a percentage of any recovery and penalty imposed. Violation of the federal False Claims Act may result in fines of up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties – up to approximately $28,619 in 2025 – per false claim or statement, imprisonment or both, reimbursement of the whistleblower’s attorneys’ fees, and possible exclusion from any federal health care programs. The penalties will continue to be adjusted, increasing each year to reflect changes in the inflation rate, pursuant to the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act.

The Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018, or EKRA, was passed as part of the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (referred to as the SUPPORT Act). Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, EKRA creates criminal penalties for knowing or willful payment or offer, or solicitation or receipt, of any remuneration, whether directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, in exchange for the referral or inducement of laboratory testing unless a specific exception applies. Unlike the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, EKRA is not limited to federal health care programs and extends the prohibitions to services covered by commercial health plans. Additionally, not all of the safe harbors available under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are reiterated under EKRA, and certain EKRA exceptions conflict with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbors. Although EKRA provides that it does not apply to conduct covered by the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, that provision is subject to interpretation by the courts. Therefore, compliance with a federal Anti-Kickback safe harbor may not guarantee protection under EKRA. As currently drafted, EKRA potentially expands the universe of arrangements that could be subject to government enforcement under federal fraud and abuse laws. Violation of EKRA carries potential penalties of up to $200,000 in fines and imprisonment of up to ten years for each occurrence, and potential exclusion from participation in any federal health care program. Currently, there is no proposed regulation interpreting or implementing EKRA, nor any public guidance released by any federal agency concerning EKRA. The only case law issued to date involves decisions interpreting the EKRA as it applies to compensation of laboratory sales personnel hired as independent contractors, and the courts differ on interpretation and application of the law; these decisions are currently on appeal. We cannot assure you that our relationships with physicians, hospitals, customers, or sales personnel will not be subject to scrutiny or will survive a challenge under EKRA. If imposed for any reason, sanctions under EKRA could have a negative effect on our business.

We are also subject to the Physician Self-Referral law, commonly known as the Stark Law, which prohibits, with certain exceptions, an ownership or financial arrangement with a physician (or a physician’s immediate family member) in exchange for the referral of designated health services, including clinical laboratory services, or presenting or causing to be presented claims to Medicare and Medicaid for such services referred by the physician. The Stark Law is a strict liability statute, which means proof of specific intent to violate the law is not required. Any person who presents or causes to be presented a claim to the Medicare or Medicaid programs in violation of the Stark Law may be subject to civil monetary penalties – up to $31,670 in 2025 – per claim submission, an assessment of up to three times the amount claimed, and exclusion from participation in any federal health care program. A person who engages in a scheme to circumvent the Stark Law’s referral prohibition may be fined – up to $211,146 in 2025 – for each such arrangement or scheme. Claims submitted in violation of the Stark Law may not be paid by Medicare or Medicaid, and any person collecting any amounts with respect to any such prohibited claim is obligated to refund such amounts. Actions which violate the Stark Law may be bootstrapped to involve liability under the federal False Claims Act.

Further, in addition to the privacy and security regulations stated above, HIPAA created two federal crimes: healthcare fraud and false statements relating to healthcare matters. The healthcare fraud statute prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private payers, or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by or under the control of any health care benefit program in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services. The false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. A violation of either statute is a felony and may result in fines or imprisonment or, in the case of the healthcare fraud statute, exclusion from government sponsored programs.

27

Table of Contents

Finally, federal law prohibits any entity from offering or transferring to a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary any remuneration that the entity knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner or supplier of Medicare or Medicaid payable items or services, including waivers of copayments and deductible amounts (or any part thereof), if any apply, and transfers of items or services for free or for other than fair market value. Entities found in violation may be liable for civil monetary penalties – up to $100,000 (or $25,595 for each wrongful act) in 2025. Although we believe that our business activities and practices, including our sales and marketing practices, are in material compliance with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations, relevant regulatory authorities may disagree, and violation of these laws or our exclusion from such programs as Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs as a result of a violation of such laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Many states, including California, also have state “physician self-referral” prohibitions and other laws that are not limited to Medicare and Medicaid referrals, with which we must comply. We are subject to California’s Physician Ownership and Referral Act, or PORA, which generally prohibits us from billing a patient or any governmental or commercial third-party payer for any laboratory services when the physician ordering the service, or any member of such physician’s immediate family, has a “financial interest” with us, unless the arrangement meets an exception (CA Business and Professions Code Section 650.02). The term “financial interest” is defined broadly and includes any type of ownership interest, debt, loan, lease, compensation, remuneration, discount, rebate, refund, etc. between the ordering physician and the entity receiving the referral. The exceptions to PORA track certain of the Stark Law exceptions, including an exception for personal service arrangements and for ownership of publicly traded entities. A violation of PORA is punishable by civil and criminal penalties, and may reach up to $15,000 per violation.

Other states may have self-referral restrictions with which we have to comply that differ from those imposed by federal and California law.

We are also subject to applicable state client billing laws, which specify whether a person that did not perform the service is permitted to submit the claim for payment and if so, whether the non-performing person is permitted to mark up the cost of the services in excess of the price the purchasing provider paid for such services. California has an anti-markup statute with which we must comply, which prohibits providers from charging for any laboratory test that it did not perform unless the provider (a) notifies the patient, client or customer of the name, address, and charges of the laboratory performing the test, and (b) charges no more than what the provider was charged by the clinical laboratory which performed the test except for any other service actually rendered to the patient by the provider (for example, specimen collection, processing and handling) (CA Business and Professions Code Section 655.5). This provision applies, with certain limited exceptions, to licensed persons such as physicians and clinical laboratories regulated under the Business and Professions Code. A violation of this provision can lead to imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Other states have similar anti-markup prohibitions with which we must comply. In addition, many states also have “direct-bill” laws, which means that the services actually performed by an individual or entity must be billed by such individual or entity, thus preventing ordering physicians from purchasing services from a laboratory and rebilling for the services they order. For example, California has a direct bill rule specific to anatomic pathology services that prohibits any provider from billing for anatomic pathology services if those services were not actually rendered by that person or under his or her direct supervision with some exemptions (CA Business and Professions Code Section 655.7).

While we have attempted to comply with the federal, Texas, California and New York fraud and abuse laws and similar laws of other states and non-U.S. jurisdictions that are applicable to our business, it is possible that some of our arrangements could be subject to regulatory scrutiny at some point in the future, and we cannot provide assurance that we will be found to be in compliance with these laws following any such regulatory review.

28

Table of Contents

Human Capital Management

As of December 31, 2025, our global workforce comprised 6,140 employees, of whom 6,135 were full time employees. We also engage consultants and temporary employees. We have not been subject to labor action or union activities, and our management considers its relationships with employees to be good.

Based on self-identification data, in 2025, women comprised approximately 64.2% of our global workforce, approximately 65.7% of global new hires, and approximately 63.8% of internal promotions. Also based on self-identification data, minorities comprised approximately 39% of our U.S. workforce.

We are committed to attracting, retaining, developing, and nurturing a diverse workforce, which we believe is necessary in order to deliver upon our mission of changing the management of disease worldwide. Our development, performance, and compensation programs are designed to attract and reward talented individuals from a broad range of backgrounds and experiences who possess the skills necessary to support our business objectives, assist in the achievement of our strategic goals, and ultimately create long term value for our stockholders. In addition to base pay, our compensation and benefits programs, which can vary by region, can include annual bonuses, stock-based compensation awards, a 401(k) plan with employee matching opportunities, healthcare and insurance benefits, health savings and flexible spending accounts, paid time off, parental leave, and employee assistance programs. We work to ensure pay equity by annually assessing our compensation practices and working with external compensation consultants to design and benchmark our programs.

We operate in an industry in which competition for highly qualified personnel is intense. In addition to our compensation programs, we are highly focused on talent acquisition, retention and development. We periodically conduct employee engagement surveys, the results of which inform internal company and management goals to help ensure impactful and meaningful actions in response to feedback received. Our employee evaluation process helps us to support developing employees as well as identify and cultivate high performers, and we have various initiatives underway to further develop leaders and managers. More than 92% of employees participated in our most recent employee engagement survey, conducted in 2024, the results of which indicated an overall 84% engagement score, and that 91% of employees are proud to work at Natera, and 80% would recommend Natera as a great place to work. In 2025, we focused on addressing opportunities identified in the 2024 survey, including the launch of leadership roundtables and expanded personal development training We believe that our engagement survey results reflect our commitment to fostering a thriving workplace culture, even amidst significant organizational growth.

We have a growing number of employee resource groups, or ERGs, which offer opportunities for our employees to build connection and create a supportive and inclusive culture of belonging and awareness, which we believe positively impacts our workplace. Our ERGs provide a platform of networking, ongoing learning and exchange to support professional development and promote overall workplace culture, engagement and satisfaction, and encompass a variety of focuses such as sustainability; cancer survivorship; volunteerism; belonging; fostering development and growth of early career professionals; and supporting veterans.

Sustainability

We recognize that in our work to improve the state of disease globally, it is important to develop and maintain a strong ethos of sustainability, responsibility, and stewardship with respect to environmental matters. We have policies and programs in place to comply with the requirements set forth in applicable local, state, and federal environmental policies, laws and regulations. However, we cannot predict how changes in these laws and regulations, or the development of new laws and regulations, will affect our business operations or the cost of compliance. Climate change may impact our business by increasing operating costs due to additional regulatory requirements, physical risks to our facilities, energy limitations, and disruptions to our supply chain. We consider such potential risks in our business continuity planning, including reviewing investment opportunities in renewable energy, and reducing energy and water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste production.

29

Table of Contents

As part of our sustainability program, we have an executive steering committee responsible for overseeing sustainability projects to reduce the environmental impact of our laboratory operations, our corporate offices, and our supply chain. Our environmental sustainability program addresses, among others, emissions reduction; water and energy conservation; sustainability in supply chain management; waste reduction; employee engagement; and sustainable building design and operations. In 2025, Natera established near-term science-based greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that have been validated by the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi). Progress on all sustainability goals are presented to the board at least annually, in addition to updates regarding climate impacts and broader strategy discussions. Additional information, including goal progress, can be found in our annual Sustainability Report located on our website at www.natera.com/sustainability. We do not incorporate the information on, or accessible through, our website into this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC, and you should not consider any information on, or accessible through, our website as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC.

The Company does not conduct animal testing.

Glossary of Terms

ACOG – the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

ACMG – the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Allograft – the transplant of an organ or tissue from one individual to another individual of the same species who is not genetically identical.

AMA – American Medical Association.

AUC – area under the receiver operating curve; a measure of the diagnostic performance of a test, based on sensitivity and specificity.

cfDNA – cell-free DNA.

CLIA – Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments.

CMS – Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

CNV – copy number variation; a genetic mutation in which relatively large regions of the genome have been deleted or duplicated.

CPT – Current Procedure Terminology; codes used by doctors and health care professionals for identifying medical services and procedures.

ctDNA – circulating tumor DNA; tumor DNA circulating in a blood sample.

CS test – carrier screening test.

dd-cfDNA – donor-derived cell-free DNA; DNA that is shed into the blood of a transplant recipient from a transplanted organ undergoing rejection.

DNA – deoxyribonucleic acid.

FDA – Food and Drug Administration.

30

Table of Contents

Fetal aneuploidy – an inherited genetic condition in which a fetus has a different number of chromosomes than are typical.

IVD – in vitro diagnostic; tests that can be used in any laboratory that has the appropriate qualifications and authorizations.

IVF – in vitro fertilization.

LDT – laboratory developed test; tests that are designed, developed, validated and used within a single laboratory.

MFM – maternal fetal medicine; an MFM physician specialist is an obstetrician who has completed a medical education specialty in high-risk pregnancy.

Microdeletion – a deletion of a region of DNA from one copy of one chromosome.

mmPCR – massively multiplexed polymerase chain reaction.

NGS – next-generation sequencing; a DNA sequencing technology.

NIPT – non-invasive prenatal test.

No-call – the inability to update the prior risk, or the standard risk assigned based on maternal and gestational age, in order to provide a high-risk or low-risk test result due to insufficient information in the sample.

OB/GYN – obstetrician-gynecologist; a doctor who specializes in women’s health.

PPV – positive predictive value; the likelihood that a positive result on a test indicates a true positive result in the patient.

Sensitivity – the likelihood that an individual with a condition will be correctly found to have that condition. Sensitivity is calculated as the ratio between the number of individuals that test positive for the condition over the total number of individuals in the tested cohort who actually have the condition.

SNP – single nucleotide polymorphism; a position on the chromosome at which single DNA base changes are common in the population.

SNV – single nucleotide variant; a genetic mutation in which a single chemical base in DNA has changed.

Specificity – the likelihood that an individual without a condition will be correctly found not to have that condition. Specificity is calculated as the ratio between the number of individuals that test negative for a condition over the total number of individuals in the tested cohort who do not have the condition.

Triploidy – a type of fetal aneuploidy in which an individual has three copies of every chromosome instead of two.

Corporate Information

Our principal executive office is located at 13011 McCallen Pass, Building A Suite 100, Austin, Texas. Our website address is www.natera.com. We do not incorporate the information on, or accessible through, our website into this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC, and you should not consider any information on, or accessible through, our website as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC.

​

31

Table of Contents

Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, may be obtained free of charge at the Investor Relations section of our website, http://investor.natera.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. Additionally, the SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information. The address of the SEC’s website is www.sec.gov.

​