How to Pick a Rapid COVID Test for Travel Especially With Young Children

Our house continues to be very concerned about COVID. Combine that with the prior shortage of at home rapid tests, and the result is we have tried every test we could get our hands on. If you can stick it up your nose to test for COVID, we’ve done it. Or made our friends and family do it. We’ve used the Binax, iHealth, On/Go, FlowFlex, and probably others that I have forgotten about as the pandemic grinds on.

With our first international trip during COVID planned, we needed at home rapid tests that would be accepted for travel. After using three different at home rapid tests for travel in the span of a few days, I think the ON/GO with Azova is the best option. That is because it was the easiest test to take and you do not need to get special test kits for travel in advance.

With any of these options you are essentially taking a “regular” at home rapid test while someone watches on video and then checks the result. The big differentiator is how easy it is to setup the supervised test and how easy it is to work with the person supervising. In both cases the Azova option was far superior. If there are differences between how the tests detect COVID on a scientific of medical level, that is well beyond the scope of my lay experience.

Why Did I Do This?

Everyone I know — or don’t actually know but follow on Instagram — seems to use the Binax test, which is administered through eMed, to get test results necessary for travel. As influencing clearly works on me, eMed and Binax seemed like the obvious choice to buy. And I did. But, the eMed and Binax test is not authorized for children under four, which means I couldn’t use them for my two and a half year old who had to be tested.

After some research I found Qured sold a test that was authorized for ages two and up. So I bought one of those. Because the Qured was slightly more expensive than the Binax, and I already had Binax tests ordered, I decided to use the Qured only for my child.

With departure day approaching we did the tests, got our travel visas, and packed.

Then my wife got hit with terrible food poisoning and we had to postpone our trip. That meant we needed new visas and, of course, a new round of COVID tests. At that point we were out of the eMed and Binax tests for travel (we had some of the “regular” Binax tests but those cannot be used for travel) and the Qured tests. So we used “regular” ON/GO tests we had on hand with Azova to get a new round of travel visas. This was far and away the best experience — head and shoulders above eMed and Qured.

Comparing The Tests

The four biggest issues for me were:

1. Ease of Administering the Test
2. Cost and Availability of Tests
3. Scheduling / Availability of Testing Appointments
4. Quality of Connection

Each test had its plusses and minuses but in general I found Azova to be the best for me.

Ease of Administering the Test

This is where Azova really stood apart from the others and eMed was significantly more difficult and cumbersome.

• Azova: This felt the most like taking a non-proctored rapid test. The representative supervised and guided us through the steps but we did not have to check expiration dates or scan any QR codes. After the specimen was deposited on the ON/GO test cartridge we were presented with a 10 minute timer. When the timer ended we held up the test strip to the camera for a photo and confirmed the result. That was it. The PDF results were available in the app within minutes. There were no issues at all doing this with my toddler.
• eMed: This was very cumbersome. Before the test even started we had to show the expiration date of the test and then scan several QR codes. This would not have been a huge deal but the representative needed all this done on the back camera of my iPad. And, before that, made me put the iPad as far away on my desk as I could so he could see my whole desk. Although that gave him a better view of me, it meant a lot of hopping up and down to scan things using the back camera. After the test was done there was more scanning and hopping up and down to get to the back camera to confirm the results.
• Qured: This test was fine. We were sent a FlowFlex test kit in advance. Once the appointment started it was much easier to confirm the expiration date of the test and scan the QR codes. After the specimen was deposited on the test cartridge I was given a code to write down on a piece of paper. Then the chat ends. You set your own timer and 15 minutes later (but not much later) you take a picture of the test apparatus next to the codes you wrote down and upload it. I assume the paper and handwriting is to prevent fraud but how it works, I’m not so sure.

Cost and Availability of Tests

Although there is not a huge difference in cost between the tests, I found the Azova to be the most cost effective because you do not need to get specific travel approved tests.

• Azova: You can use this service to get COVID results for travel using regular ON/GO or FlowFlex tests available from a drug store or Amazon. ON/GO tests come two to a box for about $20 and FlowFlex are similarly priced. With your test in hand you simply purchase the proctoring on Azova for $20 per person. So, about $30 per test. But, the real advantage is not needing to stock travel tests and non-travel tests. In other words, we can have a few ON/GO tests on hand and use them for travel or routine testing, as needed. This was crucial for us when we ran out of eMed and Qured tests and there was no way we could get more in time for our trip.
• eMed: These are sold 6 tests for $150 so about $25 per test. That makes them slightly cheaper than the Azova + separate test option. So, if you know you are going to be traveling then you may be able to save a little money.
• Qured: These are the most expensive at $35 per test.

Scheduling / Availability of Testing Appointments

eMed slightly nudges out Azova here with Qured a distant third.

• Azova: Although you need an appointment, they were readily available. I was able to set up appointments within 10 minutes of signing up and there was very little wait (less than a minute) when I logged in at the appointment time.
• eMed: No appointment required, which is obviously easier than Azova. You just log in and wait for a representative to be available. Both times I used this a representative was available very quickly.
• Qured: Appointments were required and fairly limited. I booked an appointment pretty far out because I knew when I needed the test done. When I booked there was lots of availability. Of course, on the day of the test, the time I had booked turned out to be pretty inconvenient so I tried to move it. At that point, I couldn’t find any appointments within the next four days.

Quality of Connection

Azova was the winner here with eMed surprisingly dissapointing.

• Azova: Connection was great — I could clearly hear the representative and they had no complaints about seeing me.
• eMed: Connections were very poor with the representative’s audio cutting in and out. On one test I could not hear the representative at all so they sent all instructions through the chat feature.
• Qured: Connection was fine. Interestingly this is the only one of the tests where the person watching me take the test had their video on and I could see him. The person was awkwardly positioned in the bottom corner of the screen and appeared to be sitting on the floor of a closet with clothing hanging behind them. This sparked endless questions from my toddler. (If I had known I was going to write this I definitely would have done a screen capture!)

I never sought to write this — or become expert in COVID tests for travel — but because I wound up using three different testing services within a matter of days thought that this could be useful for others planning on venturing out of the country.