See this post for the criteria being used.

Accessibility: D	No Downloads
Significance: D	No Values or averages
Reference:  B	Excellent volume, lack of linkage
Actions: B	Similar list to Thryve-Inside.
Evidence: D	None could be located
Benevolence: B
Support:  A	No issues reported
Promptness: C	See data below
Metadata: B-	Provides simple 3 state ratings, no actual values
Overtime: C	Charts provided for metadata
Taxa Score: 100?% – A	On a sample, only 123 reported
Taxa Scope 100?%	Only a few reported on

Gives Evaluation of different Aspects

For each one, a simple 3 state chart is shown (without values or references)

Reports which Bacteria but not amount!

I did a count of the number reported (includes virii etc) and the total count of species/strains was {279, 296, 376, 246}. uBiome averge count of species was 82, so equivalent or better for species identified.

Processing Time

Actual time vary greatly, but 3 weeks seems the norm.

Supplements

References

They provide a long list of 565 citations here. Unfortunately it is unclear of how the references connect to their conclusions.

Bottom Line

For a user that wants just diet changes suggestions without visibility into the logic or needing to understand the microbiome, Viome does a fine job. For any individual that wanting to take ownership of the changes, it is a disaster — no downloads, no reference numbers, no counts, no ability to simply trace from suggestions back to literature for specific items.

If Viome opens up their data, they will likely be an awesome provider.