UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

(RULE14a-101)

INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Filed by the Registrant x☒     Filed by a Party other than the Registrant o☐

Check the appropriate box:

☐             Preliminary Proxy Statement

☐            Confidential, For Use of the Commission Only (As Permitted by Rule14a-6(e)(2))

☒             Definitive Proxy Statement

☐             Definitive Additional Materials

☐             Soliciting Material under Rule14a-12

NeoGenomics, Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

PROXY STATEMENT

NEOGENOMICS, INC.NeoGenomics, Inc.

12701 Commonwealth Drive

Suite 9

Fort Myers, Florida 33913

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERSTo our Stockholders:

TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY JUNE 7, 2016

Dear Stockholder:

You are invitedIt is our pleasure to invite you to attend the 2016our 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of NeoGenomics, Inc. to, which will be held onThursday, June 7, 2016, 6, 2019, 10:00 a.m., local time, at the Ritz Carlton GolfHyatt Coconut Point Resort at 2600 Tiburon Drive, Naples, Florida 34109.5001 Coconut Road Bonita Springs, FL 34134.

Details regarding the meeting and the business to be conducted are described in the accompanying proxy statement. In addition to considering the matters described in the proxy statement, we will report on matters of interest to our stockholders.

We are pleased to inform you that instead of a paper copy of our proxy materials, most of our stockholders will be mailed a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (“Notice of Internet Availability”). The Notice of Internet Availability contains instructions on how to access proxy materials and how to submit your proxy over the Internet. The Notice of Internet Availability also contains instructions on how to request a paper copy of our proxy materials, if desired. All stockholders who do not receive a Notice of Internet Availability will be mailed a paper copy of the proxy materials. Furnishing proxy materials over the internet allows us to provide our stockholders with the information they need in a timely manner, while reducing the environmental impact and lowering the costs of printing and distributing our proxy materials.

Your vote is very important to us. Whether or not you plan to attend the meeting, we encourage you to vote as soon as possible to ensure that your shares are represented at the meeting. The proxy statement explains more about proxy voting, so please read it carefully.

We look forward tothank you for your continued support.support and confidence in NeoGenomics.

Sincerely,

April 29, 201622, 2019

Notice of 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

April 29, 2016Thursday, June 6, 2019

12701 Commonwealth Drive Suite 910:00am, Eastern Daylight Time

Fort Myers, Florida 33913ITEMS OF BUSINESS:

1. To elect eight directors from among the nominees named in the attached Proxy Statement.

2. To approve, on anon-binding advisory basis, executive compensation.

3. To approve, on anon-binding advisory basis, the frequency of future advisory votes on the compensation paid to our named executive officers.

4. To ratify the appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2019.

5. To consider any other business properly brought before the Annual Meeting.

RECORD DATE:

You can vote if you were a stockholder of record as of the close of business on April 12, 2019.

PROXY VOTING:

It is important that your shares be represented at the meetingAnnual Meeting regardless of the number of shares you hold.Whether or not you expect to attend the meeting in person, please complete, date, sign and return the accompanying proxy card in the enclosed envelope or use the telephone or internet method of voting as described on your proxy card to ensure the presence of a quorum at the meeting. Even if you have voted by proxy and you attend the meeting, you may, if you prefer, revoke your proxy and vote your shares in person.Please note, however, that if your shares are held

By Order of record by a broker, bank or other nominee and you wish to vote at the meeting, you will not be permitted to vote in person at the meeting unless you first obtain a legal proxy issued in your name from the record holder.Board of Directors

This proxy statement is dated April 29, 2016 and is going to be first mailed to stockholders of NeoGenomics, Inc. on or about May 6, 2016. This proxy statement contains information on matters to be voted upon at the annual meeting or any adjournments of that meeting.Denise Pedulla

Corporate Secretary

Important Notice Regardingnotice regarding the Availabilityavailability of Proxy Materialsproxy materials for the Annual Meeting of

Stockholders to Be Heldbe held on Thursday, June 7, 2016.

The proxy statement6, 2019. Our Proxy Statement and 2015 annual reportAnnual Report to stockholdersStockholders are available at https://materials.proxyvote.com/64049M.www.proxyvote.com.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

NEOGENOMICS, INC.

PROXY STATEMENT FOR THE

20162019 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

NeoGenomics, Inc. (“we ,”,” “us ,”,” “our ,”,” “NeoGenomics ,”,” or the “Company ”)”), having its principal executive offices at 12701 Commonwealth Drive, Suite 9, Fort Myers, Florida 33913, is providing these proxy materials in connection with the 20162019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of NeoGenomics, Inc. (the “20162019 Annual Meeting”). This proxy statement contains important information for you to consider when deciding how to vote on the matters brought before the 20162019 Annual Meeting.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE 20162019 ANNUAL MEETING

As of the close of business on the Record Date, there were 77,117,67895,321,508 shares of our common stock and 14,666,667 shares of Series A Preferred Stock outstanding, andeach entitled to one vote.  Holders of our common stock and of our Series A Preferred Stock will vote together as a single class on all matters being presented in this Proxy Statement, for up to an aggregate 91,784,345 votes. The common stock and Series A Preferred Stock collectively constitute all of our voting shares (the “Voting Stock”). We refer to the holders of shares of our common stock and of shares of our Series A Preferred Stock (which are convertible into shares of our common stock) as “stockholders” throughout this Proxy Statement.

Each stockholder may be asked to present valid picture identification such as a driver’s license or passport and proof of stock ownership as of the Record Date.

1

If you are a stockholder of record and you have requested printed proxy materials, we have enclosed a proxy card for you to use.use for voting. If you hold our shares in street name through one or more banks, brokers or other nominees, you will receive the Meeting Notice, together with voting instructions, from the third party or parties through which you hold your shares. If you requested printed proxy materials, your broker, bank or other nominee has enclosed a voting instruction card for you to use in directing the broker, bank or other nominee regarding how to vote your shares.

Q:  What are the quorum requirements for the 2019 Annual Meeting?

A: The presence in person or by proxy of persons entitled to vote a majority of shares of our outstanding common stock at the 2019 Annual Meeting constitutes a quorum. Your shares of our common stock will be counted as present at the 2019 Annual Meeting for purposes of determining

whether there is a quorum if a proxy card has been properly submitted by you or on your behalf, or you vote in person at the 2019 Annual Meeting. Abstaining votes and brokernon-votes are counted for purposes of establishing a quorum.

Q:  What matters will the stockholders vote on at the 2019 Annual Meeting?

A:  The stockholders will vote on the following proposals:

• Proposal 1 - Election of Directors.

To elect eight members of our Board, each to hold office for a one year term ending on the date of the next succeeding annual meeting of stockholders or until such director’s successor shall have been duly elected and qualified.

• Proposal 2 - Advisory Vote on the Compensation Paid to our Named Executive Officers.

An advisory vote on the compensation paid to our named executive officers.

• Proposal 3 - Advisory Vote on the Frequency of Future Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation.

An advisory vote on the frequency of future advisory votes on executive compensation.

• Proposal 4 - Ratification of Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.

Q:  What vote is required to approve each proposal?

A:   Provided a quorum is present, the following are the voting requirements for each proposal:

• Proposal 1 - Election of Directors.

The eight nominees receiving a majority number of votes “FOR” from the holders of votes of shares present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote on the election of directors will be elected.

• Proposal 2 - Advisory Vote on the Compensation Paid to our Named Executive Officers.

Proposal 2 will be approved if holders of a majority of the shares present or represented by proxy and entitled to vote at the meeting vote “FOR” the proposal.

• Proposal 3 - Advisory Vote on the Frequency of Future Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation.

If the majority of the votes cast by stockholders in person or via proxy with respect to this matter are cast in favor of a particular frequency alternative (whether every year, every two (2) years or every three (3) years) such frequency will be considered to be the recommendation of the stockholders on the advisory vote regarding the frequency of future advisory votes on the compensation paid to our named executive officers.

• Proposal 4. Ratification of Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.

Proposal 4 will be approved if a majority of the votes cast by stockholders in person or via proxy with respect to this matter are cast in favor of the proposal.

Q:  What are the Board’s voting recommendations?

A:  Our Board recommends that you vote your shares:

•“FOR” the eight directors nominated by our Board, each to serve until the 2020 annual meeting of stockholders or until such director’s successor shall have been duly elected and qualified.

•“FOR” the approval of the proposal regarding the compensation paid to our named executive officers.

•“EVERY YEAR”for the proposal regarding the frequency of future advisory votes on the compensation paid to our named executive officers;

•“FOR” the ratification of Appointment of the Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.

Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of DIANON Systems, Inc., (“DIANON”), a publicly-traded cancer diagnostic services company providing anatomic pathology and molecular genetic testing services to physicians nationwide. During that time, DIANON grew annual revenues from approximately $56 million in 1996 to approximately $200 million in 2002. DIANON was sold to Laboratory Corporation of America (NYSE: LH) in January of 2003. Prior to joining DIANON in 1996, Mr. Johnson was employed by Quest Diagnostics Inc. and itsQuest’s predecessor, the Life Sciences Division of Corning, Incorporated, for 18 years, and held numerous management and executive level positions. Mr. Johnson is currently serving on the Board of Directors of ClearPath Diagnostics, a private company.

Raymond R. Hipp, age 73.76. Mr. Hipp has served as a director since February 2011. Mr. Hipp is a retired senior executive that has been involved in consulting work over the last few years involving mergers and acquisitions as well as being a memberserving on the board of a number ofdirectors for several public company boards of directors.companies. From July 1998 until his retirement in June 2002, Mr. Hipp served as Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerCEO of Alternative Resources Corporation, a provider of information technology outsourcing services. From August 1996 until May 1998, Mr. Hipp was the Chief Executive Officer of ITI Marketing Services, a provider of marketing services. Prior to that, Mr. Hipp held senior executive positions with several other firms. Mr. Hipp has a B.S. from Southeast Missouri State University. Mr. Hipp served on the Boardboard of Directorsdirectors and on the Audit Committeeaudit committee of Gardner Denver, Inc. (NYSE: GDI), an industrial manufacturing company, for over 14 years.

4

Bruce K. Crowther, age 64.67. Mr. Crowther has served as a Directordirector since October 2014. Mr. Crowther recently retired in 2013 as President and Chief Executive Officer of Northwest Community Healthcare where he has served for the last 23 years. Northwest Community Healthcare is an award winning hospital offering a complete system of care. Mr. Crowther has a B.S. in Biology and an M.B.A. from Virginia Commonwealth University. Mr. Crowther serves on the Boardboard of Directorsdirectors of Wintrust Financial Corporation, a public financial holding company and serves on the Boardboard of Directorsdirectors of Barrington Bank and Trust which is a Wintrust Financial Corporation owned Company. He also serves aswas previously the Chairman and currently a Director of the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation;Foundation, a not for profit organization committed to conservation education and research.

William J. Robison, age 80. Mr. RobisonCrowther has also served as a director since May 2007. Mr. Robison, who is retired, spent his entire 41 year career with Pfizer, Inc. At Pfizer, he rose through the ranks of the sales organization and became Senior Vice President of Pfizer Labs in 1986. In 1990, he became General Manager of Pratt Pharmaceuticals, a then new division of the U.S. Pharmaceuticals Group, and in 1992 he became the President of the Consumer Health Care Group. In 1996 he became a member of Pfizer’s Corporate Management Committee and was promoted to the position of Executive Vice President and head of Worldwide Corporate Employee Resources. Mr. Robison retired from Pfizer in 2001 and currently serves on the Board of Directors of MWI Veterinary Supply Company, Inc. (NASD: MWIV). He is also on the board of trustees of University of Louisiana – Monroe. Mr. Robison was previously a board member and an executive committee member of the USO of Metropolitan New York,Gray Matter Analytics, Inc., the Human Resources Roundtable Group, the Pharmaceutical Human Resource Council, the Personnel Round Table, and the Employee Relations Steering Committee for The Business Round Table.a privately owned company, since 2018. Gray Matter provides analytical tools to health systems.

Lynn A. Tetrault, age 53. Mrs.56. Ms. Tetrault has served as a director since June 2015. Mrs.Ms. Tetrault is currently a consultant.founder and principal of Anahata Leadership, an advisory firm focused on supporting the leadership effectiveness and development of executive women. She worked from 1993 to 2014 with AstraZeneca, PLC most recently as Executive Vice President Human Resources and Corporate Affairs. Mrs.Ms. Tetrault was responsible for all human resources strategy, talent management, executive compensation and related activities, internal and external communications, government affairs, corporate reputation and corporate social responsibility for the Company. Mrs. Tetrault has previous board experience having been a director of Women’s Way as well as a Board Member of MedImmune.  Mrs. Tetrault is currently President of the Board of The Timbers Club, a non-profit organization.  Mrs.Ms. Tetrault has an undergraduate degree from Princeton University and a J.D. from the University of Virginia Law School.

Alison L. Hannah, age 55.58. Dr. Hannah has served as a director since June 2015. Dr. Hannah has over 25 years'years’ experience in the development of investigational cancer chemotherapies. Since 2000, she has served as a consultant to the pharmaceutical industry, working with over 20 companies with a focus on molecularly targeted therapy. Prior to this, she worked as Senior Medical Director at SUGEN on various compounds, including Sutent approved in kidney cancer, and Quintiles, a global Contract Research Organization. Dr. Hannah specializes in clinical development strategy, and has filed over 30 Investigational New Drug applications for new molecular entities and 78 successful New Drug Applications. She participates in Data Monitoring Committees, Scientific Advisory Boards and Independent Review Committees for clinical trials. She has a bachelor'sbachelor’s degree in biochemistry and immunology from Harvard University and her medical degree from the University of Saint Andrews. She is a member of ASCO, AACR, ASH, ESMO and a Fellow with the Royal Society of Medicine.

Stephen M. Kanovsky, age 53.56. Mr. MurphyKanovsky has served as a director since July 2017. Mr. Kanovsky is President and Chief Executive OfficerGeneral Counsel, Global Innovation of GE Healthcare, Life Sciences, a $4.0 billion molecular medicine business unit of General Electric that provides medical technologies and solutions to the global healthcare industry and supports customers in over 100 countries with a broad range of industry-leading technologiesservices and services for drug discovery, pre-clinicalsystems, from diagnostic imaging and clinical developmenthealthcare IT through to molecular diagnostics and biopharmaceutical manufacturing, as well as molecular tools for therapy selection and treatment monitoring in patient care.life sciences. Mr. Murphy has over twenty-five years of experience in the global life sciences and biotechnology industry.  Mr. MurphyKanovsky earned his bachelor’s degree in 1984 from the University College, Dublin.of Pennsylvania. He subsequently graduated from the UniversityTemple University’s School of Manchester Institute of Science and TechnologyPharmacy with a master’s degree in Marketing.

Pharmacology and Temple University’s School of Law with a juris doctorate degree. Mr. Murphy was appointed to the Board pursuant to the Investor Board Rights, Lockup and Standstill Agreement with GE Medical Systems, under which the Company is, subject to certain limitations, required to appointKanovsky also holds a director designated by GE Medical Systems to the Board.master’s degree in business administration from Saint Joseph’s University’s Haub School of Business.

Nomination Criteria

The following is a summary of certain of the experience, qualifications, attributes and skills that led the Company’s Board of Directors to conclude that such person should serve as a director at the time each was nominated. This information supplements the biographical information provided above.

executive officers and may also consider recommendations by employees, community leaders, business contacts, third-party search firms, and any other sources deemed appropriate by the Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee will also consider director candidates recommended by stockholders to stand for election at the annual meeting of stockholders so long as such recommendations are submitted in accordance with the procedures described below under “Stockholder Recommendations for Board Candidates.Candidates.”

Board Leadership Structure. Our Board does not havehas a policy on whetherthat allows the offices of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer shouldto be separate or combined and, if they are to be separate, whether theallows Chairman of the Board shouldrole to be either selected from among the independent directors.directors or an executive officer. Our Board believes that it should have the flexibility to make these determinations at any given time in the way that it believes best to provide appropriate leadership for the Company at that time. Our Board has reviewed our current Board leadership structure in light of the composition of the Board, the Company’s size, the nature of the Company’s business, the regulatory framework under which the Company operates, and other relevant factors. Considering these factors, the Company has determined to have the same individual, Douglas VanOort, serve as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board. The Board does not have nor have they appointed a lead independent director.

Board Role in Risk Oversight. The Board administers its risk oversight function directly and through the Audit Committee. The Board and the Audit Committee regularly discuss with management the Company’s major risk exposures, and their potential financial impact on the Company, and the steps taken to monitor and control those risks.

Information Regarding Meetings and Committees of the Board

The Board. The Board met four times for regular meetings during 2015.2018. All four (4) of such meetings were regularly scheduled meetings and telephonic calls were held as needed. In addition, the Board held three (3)two special meetingsmeeting via teleconference during 2015.2018. During 2015,2018, each incumbent director attended 75% or more of the Board and applicable committee meetings for the periods during which each such director served. Directors are not required to attend annual meetings of our stockholders. We held an annual meeting of stockholders in 2015,2018, which was attended by two of the directors then serving on the Board.  We also held a special meeting of the stockholders in 2015, which was attended by three of the directors then serving on the Board.

The Board currently has four (4) standing committees: the Audit Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Compliance Committee.

7

Board Committees. The following table sets forth the current members of each standing Committee:

Audit Committee. The Audit Committee functions pursuant to a written charter adopted by the Board, a copy of which may be found at our websitewww.neogenomics.com under the heading Investors. The

Audit Committee is appointed by the Board to assist the Board with a variety of matters described in its charter, which include monitoring (1) the integrity of our financial statements, (2) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, (3) the qualifications and independence of our independent registered public accounting firm, (4) the performance of our independent registered public accounting firm, and (5) our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. The Audit Committee met 12ten times during 2015.2018 including fourin-person meetings. The formal report of the Audit Committee is set forth beginning on page 1217 of this proxy statement.

The Board has determined that Raymond Hipp is independent and an “audit committee financial expert” as such term is defined under applicable SEC rules.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The Nominating Committee functions pursuant to a written charter adopted by the Board, a copy of which may be found at our websitewww.neogenomics.com under the heading Investors. Our Nominating Committee is responsible for (1) reviewing and evaluating the size, composition, function, and duties of the Board consistent with its needs; (2) establishing criteria for the selection of candidates to the Board and its committees, and identify individuals qualified to become Board members consistent with such criteria, including the consideration of nominees submitted by stockholders; (3) recommending to the Board, director nominees for election at the next annual or special meeting of stockholders at which directors are to be elected or to fill any vacancies or newly created directorships that may occur between such meetings; (4) recommending directors for appointment to Board committees; (5) making recommendations to the Board as to determinations of director independence; (6) overseeing the evaluation of the Board; (7) developing and recommending to the Board the Corporate Governance Guidelines for the Company and overseeing compliance with such Guidelines; and (8) monitoring significant developments in the law and practice of corporate governance and of the duties and responsibilities of directors of public companies. The Nominating Committee identifies and evaluates nominee candidates as described above under “Director Nominations”. The Nominating Committee met fivefour times during 2015.2018.

Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee functions pursuant to a written charter adopted by the Board, a copy of which may be found at our websitewww.neogenomics.com under the heading Investors. The Compensation Committee is responsible for discharging the Board’s responsibilities relating to compensation of our Chief Executive Officer and our other executive officers and has overall responsibility for approving and evaluating all of our compensation plans, policies and programs as they affect our executive officers. All of the members of the committee are independent directors within the meaning of the applicable NASDAQ Stock Market Rules. The Compensation Committee met ten7 times during 2015.2018 including three in person meetings.

The Compensation Committee engaged independent compensation consultants during 2015in 2018 to provide long term incentive plan recommendations,advise the fees paid during 2015 for these services were $7,500.  The Compensation Committee also engaged consultants during 2015 to prepare aon peer group development, market practices, industry trends, investor views and benchmark compensation benchmark study for senior executives,data. In addition, they reviewed and provided the fees for these services are to be paidCompensation Committee with an independent perspective of management recommendations. These duties were consistent with those performed in 2016.  prior years.

The decision to engage this firm as a consultant was made by the compensation committeeCompensation Committee and approved by Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

Compliance Committee. Our Compliance Committee functions pursuant to a written charter adopted by the Board, a copy of which may be found at our websitewww.neogenomics.com under the heading Investors. The Compliance Committee is responsible for monitoring and administering ouroverseeing the Company’s activities in the area of corporate compliance with applicable laws and regulations related to our provision of medical related services.medical-related services and assessing management’s implementation of the Company’s Corporate Compliance Program. The Compliance Committee met four times during 2015.2018.

Stockholder RecommendationsRecommendations for Board Candidates

The Board will consider qualified candidates for director that are recommended and submitted by stockholders. Submissions that meet the current criteria for board membership are forwarded to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee for further review and consideration. The Committee will consider a recommendation only if appropriate biographical information and background material is provided on a timely basis, accompanied by a statement as to whether the stockholder or group of stockholders making the recommendation has beneficially owned more than five percent of our common stock for at least one year as of the date that the recommendation is made. To submit a recommendation for a nomination, a stockholder may write to the Board at our principal executive office, Attention: Denise Pedulla, Corporate Secretary.

The Committee will evaluate any such candidates by following substantially the same process, and applying substantially the same criteria, as for candidates submitted by Board members, assuming that appropriate biographical and background material is provided for candidates recommended by stockholders and the process for submitting the recommendation is followed.

Stockholder Communications with the Board

Stockholders may, at any time, communicate with any of our directors by mailing a written communication to NeoGenomics, Inc., 12701 Commonwealth Drive, Suite 9, Fort Myers, Florida, 33913, Attention: Denise Pedulla, Corporate Secretary. The mailing envelope must contain a clear notation indicating that the enclosed letter is a “Stockholder-Board Communication” or “Stockholder-Director Communication.” All such letters must identify the author as a stockholder, provide evidence of the sender’s stock ownership and clearly state whether the intended recipients are all members of the Board or a particular director or directors. The Corporate Secretary will then forward such correspondence, without editing or alteration, to the Board or to the specified director(s) on or prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Board. The Board will determine the method by which such submission will be reviewed and considered. The Board may also request the submitting stockholder to furnish additional information it may reasonably require or deem necessary to sufficiently review and consider the submission of such stockholder.

Board RecommendationVote Required for Approval

The Board unanimously recommends a vote “FOR” each nominee.

The nineeight nominees receiving the majority of votes cast “FOR” by stockholders in person or by proxy will be elected. This Proposal 1 is a “non-discretionary”“non-discretionary” or “non-routine”“non-routine” item, meaning that brokerage firms cannot vote shares in their discretion on behalf of a client if the client has not given voting instructions. Accordingly, if you hold your shares in street name and fail to instruct your broker to vote your shares, your shares will not be counted as votes cast and will have no effect on the outcome of this Proposal 1.

9

Board Recommendation

The Board unanimously recommends a vote “FOR” each nominee.

PROPOSAL 2.   2—ADVISORY VOTE ON THE COMPENSATION PAID TO OUR NAMESNAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

General

We are providing our stockholders with the opportunity to express their views on our named executive officers’ compensation as set forth under “Executive and Director Compensation” by casting their vote on this Proposal 2. Thisnon-binding, advisory vote is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation of our named executive officers as described in this proxy statement. We provide a stockholder advisory vote on executive compensation every three years. After the advisory vote on executive compensation held at

The Board of Directors believes our 2016 annual meeting of stockholders, the next such vote will occur at our 2019 annual meeting of stockholders.

Our executive compensation program, which is described in detail in the “Executive and Director Compensation” section beginning on page 15, is designed to balance the goals of attracting and retaining talented executives who are motivated to achieve our annual and long-term strategic goals, while keeping the program affordable and appropriately aligned with stockholder interests. We believe that our executive compensation program accomplishes these goals in a way that is consistent with our purpose and core values, and the long-term interests of the Company and its stockholders. Our equity compensation (which is awarded in the form of stock options and restricted stock) is designed to build executive ownership and align financial incentives focused on the achievement of our long-term strategic goals (both financial andnon-financial).

Although the vote on this Proposal 2 regarding the compensation of our named executive officers is not binding, wethe Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee value the opinions of our stockholders and will consider the result of the vote when determining future executive compensation arrangements.

If this proposal is approved, our stockholders will be approving the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that the compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of RegulationS-K in the Company’s proxy statement for the 20162019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, is hereby approved.

Vote Required for Approval

The compensation paid to our named executive officers will be considered approved if a majority of the votes cast by stockholders in person or via proxy with respect to this matter are cast in favor of the proposal. This Proposal 2 is a “non-discretionary”“non-discretionary” or “non-routine”“non-routine” item, meaning that brokerage firms cannot vote shares in their discretion on behalf of a client if the client has not given voting instructions. Accordingly, if you hold your shares in street name and fail to instruct your broker to vote your shares for the proposal, your shares will not be counted as votes cast for the proposal and will have no effect on the outcome of this Proposal 2. Abstentions will have no effect on the outcome of the proposal.

Board Recommendation

The Board unanimously recommends a vote “FOR” this Proposal 2.

PROPOSAL 3—ADVISORY VOTE ON THE FREQUENCY OF FUTURE ADVISORY VOTES ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

General

We are providing our stockholders with the opportunity to express their views on the frequency of future advisory votes on the compensation paid to our named executive officers by casting their vote on Proposal 3. Under Proposal 3, stockholders may vote in favor of holding this advisory vote every year, every two years or every three years beginning with the 2020 annual meeting of stockholders. The advisory vote on executive compensation described in Proposal 2 is referred to as a“say-on-pay vote.”

We currently provide a stockholder“say-on-pay” vote on executive compensation every three years, however, the Board believes that a change to an annual vote is in the best interests of our stockholders. We believe an annual“say-on-pay” vote will enhance stockholder communication by encouraging our stockholders to provide regular input on our executive compensation policies, practices and plans.

An annual vote is also consistent with our desire to constructively engage with our stockholders on important issues such as executive compensation.

Although as an advisory vote, this proposal is not binding on the Company or the Board, the Board values the opinions that our stockholders express through their votes and will carefully consider the stockholder vote, even if none of the options obtains a majority vote, along with all other views expressed by our stockholders, when considering how frequently we should hold thesay-on-pay vote. The Board may decide that it is in the best interests of the stockholders and the Company to hold an advisory vote on executive compensation more or less frequently than the option that receives the highest number of votes by our stockholders.

If this proposal is approved, our stockholders will be approving the following resolution:

RESOLVED, the change from an advisory vote on executive compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers every three years to an annual advisory vote, beginning with the 2020 Proxy Statement is hereby approved.

Vote Required for Approval

The compensation paid to our named executive officers will be considered approved if a majority of the votes cast by stockholders in person or via proxy with respect to this matter are cast in favor of the proposal. Proposal 3 is a“non-discretionary” or“non-routine” item, meaning that brokerage firms cannot vote shares in their discretion on behalf of a client if the client has not given voting instructions. Accordingly, if you hold your shares in street name and fail to instruct your broker to vote your shares for the proposal, your shares will not be counted as votes cast for the proposal and will have no effect on the outcome of Proposal 3. Abstentions will have no effect on the outcome of the proposal.

Board Recommendation

The Board unanimously recommends a vote of “EVERY YEAR” for Proposal 3.

PROPOSAL 4—RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors appointed Deloitte & Touche LLP on February 27, 2019 to serve as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019.

Although ratification of the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm is not required by our Amended and Restated Bylaws or otherwise, the Board is submitting the appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP to our stockholders for ratification because we value the views of our stockholders. In the event that stockholders fail to ratify the appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP, the Audit Committee will review its future selection of its independent registered public accounting firm. Even if the appointment is ratified, the ratification is not binding and the Audit Committee may in its discretion select a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if it determines that such a change would be in the best interests of our Company and our stockholders.

Representatives from Deloitte & Touche LLP are expected to be present at the 2019 Annual Meeting.

Former Auditors

Crowe LLP has served as our principal auditor for the previous five years. On February 27, 2019, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of NeoGenomics, Inc. (the “Company”) dismissed Crowe LLP (“Crowe”) as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, effective following the issuance of the Company’s Annual Report on Form10-K for the period ended December 31, 2018.

Crowe’s reports on the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 did not contain an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion, and were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope, or accounting principles.

During the Company’s two most recent fiscal years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 and the subsequent interim period through February 27, 2019, there were:

(i) No “disagreements” (within the meaning of Item 304(a) of RegulationS-K) with Crowe on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedure, which disagreements, if not resolved to the satisfaction of Crowe, would have caused it to make reference to the subject matter of the disagreements in its reports on the consolidated financial statements of the Company; and

(ii) No “reportable events” (as such term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of RegulationS-K).

We requested Crowe LLP to furnish us with a letter addressed to the Securities and Exchange Commission stating whether they agreed with the above statements. A copy of that letter was filed with the Commission on a Form8-K filed on March 5, 2019.

During the two most recent fiscal years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, and the subsequent interim periods through February 27, 2019, neither the Company nor anyone on its behalf consulted Deloitte regarding either the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the Company’s financial statements or any matter that was either the subject of a “disagreement” (within the meaning of Item 304(a) of RegulationS-K) or a “reportable event” (as such term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of RegulationS-K).

Vote Required for Approval

The ratification of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 will be approved if a majority of the votes cast by stockholders in person or via proxy with respect to this matter are cast in favor of the proposal. Abstentions and brokernon-votes, if any, will not be treated as votes cast and will have no impact on the proposal.

Board Recommendation

The Board unanimously recommends a vote “FOR” the ratification of the appointment of the Deloitte & Touche LLP as our Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019.

EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION

The following table provides information, as of December 31, 2015,2018, regarding the number of shares of Company common stock that may be issued under the Company’s equity compensation plans.

b.

The Company’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan was amended, restated and subsequently approved by a majority of stockholders on June 6, 2013, May 25, 2017 and June 1, 2018. The most recent amendment increased the maximum aggregate number of shares reserved and available for issuance under the Plan to 1,500,000.

Currently, the Company’s Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and restated on December 21, 2015May 25, 2017 and the Company’s ESPP, as Amended and Restated, dated April 16, 2013amended on June 1, 2018, are the only equity compensation plans in effect.

11

AUDIT COMMITTEECOMMITTEE MATTERS

Audit Committee Report

The Audit Committee operates under a written charter, which has been adopted by the Board. The Audit Committee charter governs the operations of the Audit Committee and sets forth its responsibilities, which include providing assistance to the Board with the monitoring of (1) the integrity of the Company’s financial statements, (2) the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, (3) the qualifications and independence of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, (4) the performance of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm and (5) the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. It is not the duty of the Audit Committee to plan or conduct audits or to determine that the Company’s financial statements and disclosures are complete, accurate and have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and applicable rules and regulations. These responsibilities rest with management and the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.

In fulfilling its responsibilities, the Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed the audited consolidated financial statements of the Company for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2015, 20142018, 2017 and 20132016 with management and Crowe Horwath LLP.,LLP, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the 2014 and 2015those fiscal year, and with Kingery and Crouse P.A., the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the year ended December 31, 2013.years.

The Audit Committee has discussed with Crowe Horwath LLP the matters required to be discussed by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, as amended (AICPA, Professional Standards, Vol. 1. AU section 380), as adopted by theunder applicable Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (““PCAOB” standards, as adopted by the PCAOB”) in Rule 3200T. In addition, the Committee has received during the past fiscal year the written disclosures and the letter from the independent registered public accounting firm required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding the independent registered public accounting firm’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence and has discussed with Crowe Horwath LLP its independence from the Company and its management.

In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board that the audited consolidated financial statements for the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 20152018 be included in its Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 20152018 for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

MEMBERS OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

Raymond R. Hipp (Chair)

Bruce K. Crowther

Lynn A. Tetrault

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

President and Chief Executive Officer, for Aureon Biosciences, Inc., a venture-backed diagnostics company focused on developing novel and proprietary prostate cancer tests. Mr. Shovlin also served as Executive Director for Anatomic Pathology and Director of Managed Care for Quest Diagnostics from 2003 until 2005, and held sales leadership positions at Dianon Systems from 1997 until 2003. Mr. Shovlin served as a Captain, Infantry Officer in the United States Marine Corps from 1992 until 1997 where he served as a Platoon and Company Commander with 1st Battalion 4th Marines and as an Instructor and Staff Platoon Commander at the Basic School. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree from Pennsylvania State University, and a Masters of Business Administration from Rutgers University.

George A. Cardoza

Maher Albitar, M.D., age 61President, Pharma Services

Mr. Cardoza has served the Company as the President of Pharma Services since March 2018. He has been with NeoGenomics since November 2009, serving as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer through March 2018. Prior to that, he was the Chief Financial Officer at Protocol Integrated Direct Marketing. Mr. Cardoza spent fifteen years with Quest Diagnostics, including years when it was still part of Corning Inc. With Corning Inc. he worked with the Corning Life Sciences Division, which did several acquisitions in the Pharma services space. These acquisitions formed the pieces of Covance, which Corning spun out at the same time as Quest in 1996. Mr. Cardoza has worked closely with NeoGenomics Pharmaceutical Services and Clinical Trials division, which was combined into the Clinical Trials arm of Clarient Inc. when it was acquired from General Electric Healthcare in December 2015. Mr. Cardoza received his B.S. from Syracuse University in finance and accounting and has received his M.B.A. from Michigan State University.

. Lawrence M. Weiss, MD.

Chief Scientific Officer

Dr. AlbitarWeiss has served the Company as Chief Scientific Officer since December 2018. Prior to this, he has served as Chief Medical OfficerDirector and Director of ResearchPathology Services since December 2015. Prior to joining the Company, Dr. Weiss served at Clarient Diagnostic Services, Inc. as a Pathologist and Developmentsubsequently as Laboratory Director from 2011 through 2016. Dr. Weiss is currently a Visiting Professor in the Department of Pathology and Medicine for the University of California at Irvine. Dr. Weiss received his B.S. and M.D. summa cum laude from the University of Maryland.

Kathryn B. McKenzie

Chief Accounting Officer

Ms. McKenzie has served as our Principal Accounting Officer and Vice President of Finance since January 2012. From 2008October 2017. Prior to 2011, Dr. Albitarjoining the Company, Ms. McKenzie served at Chico’s FAS, Inc. in various roles including Assistant Controller and Director of Financial Reporting and Treasury. Ms. McKenzie also previously served as Audit Manager for Ernst and Young. Ms. McKenzie is a Certified Public Accountant and holds a Master’s of Science in Accountancy from the University of North Carolina Wilmington.

Stephanie K. Bywater

Chief Compliance Officer

Ms. Bywater has served the Company as the Compliance Officer since May 2017 and was appointed Chief Compliance Officer in March 2018. Prior to joining the Company, Ms. Bywater was the Global Compliance Operations & Americas Compliance Officer at Varian Medical Systems Inc., a radiation oncology medical device company. In this role, she was responsible for developing strategy for and overseeing global compliance operations and served as the Medical Directorcompliance officer for Hematopathologyone of three global regions, with a focus on international anti-corruption and Oncology, Nichols Instituteanti-competition laws from 2015 to 2017. Prior to Varian, Ms. Bywater was the Compliance and Privacy Officer for Myriad Genetic Laboratories,

where she implemented and provided oversight for programs supporting Anti-kickback Statute, Stark Law, billing and reimbursement, FDA, research, and global data privacy and protection requirements from 2010 to 2015. In addition to her private sector experience, since 2016, Ms. Bywater has served on the Advisory Board for the Center for Genomic Interpretation, anon-profit organization, where she consults and advises on compliance related matters. Ms. Bywater has a Bachelor of Quest Diagnostics,Science degree in Healthcare Administration from Northern Illinois University and is a Certified Healthcare Professional (CHP), Certified in Healthcare Privacy (CHP), and a Certified Internal Auditor (CIA).

Jennifer M. Balliet

Chief R&D Director for Hematopathology and Oncology for Quest Diagnostics, a diagnostic testing, information and services company. From 2003 to 2008, Dr. AlbitarCulture Officer

Ms. Balliet has served as the Director of Hematopathology for the Nichols Institute of Quest Diagnostics. From 2005our Chief Culture Officer since September 2016. Prior to 2011, Dr. Albitar also served as a Board member of Associated Diagnostics Pathologists, Inc. From 1991 to 2003, Dr. Albitar held various faculty positions at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Albitar previously served as the Chief Medical Officer of Health Discovery Corporation (“HDC”) and is currently a member of the Board of Directors of HDC. Dr. Albitar has also served as a consultant to multiple companies. Dr. Albitar received his medical degree in 1979 from Damascus Medical School in Damascus, Syria.

13

Mark A. Machulcz, age 52.  Mr. Machulcz hasthat, she had served as our Vice President of OperationsHuman Resources since January 2016.  From 2011 until our acquisition of ClarientApril 2015. Ms. Balliet joined NeoGenomics in December 2015, he2008 and has steadily increased her responsibilities; she also previously served as Vice PresidentDirector of International Operations at GE Healthcare, Clarient Diagnostic Services, a leading providerHuman Resources. During her time with NeoGenomics, she managed the Human Resources process as the Company grew from 100 employees to approximately 1,500 employees. As Chief Culture Officer, Ms. Balliet has responsibility for all areas of comprehensive cancer-diagnostic laboratory services where he was responsible for theour Human Resources including recruiting, training, development, compensation, incentive plans and execution of the international and domestic expansion strategy for the clinical and bio pharmaceutical business.  From 2009 until 2011, he served as Executive Vice President of Operations at PLUS Diagnostics, a pathology laboratory where was responsible for lab operations, customer service, logistics and information technology.  Prior to joining PLUS Diagnostics, Mr. Machulcz directed the India operations at Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, where he was involved in the launch of their clinical trials service and was responsible for clinical and Anatomical Pathology Laboratories and prior to that role he served in various other positions at Quest Diagnostics with progressive levels of responsibility.  Mr. Machulczorganizational development. Ms. Balliet received his Bachelor'sher B.S. degree in Medical Technology from St. Louis UniversityPsychology and his Master'sM.S. degree in Business AdministrationManagement from Johns Hopkins University. the University of Florida.

Steven A. Ross age 52.

Chief Information Officer

Mr. Ross has served as Chief Information Officer since April 2013. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Ross served as Vice President Technology at Chico’s FAS, Inc. during the period from 2003 to 2013, where he participated in the direction of all information technology resource planning, budgeting, technology associate development coaching and operation initiatives for the $2.5 billion dollar global consumer products company. Prior to that Mr. Ross worked for Zinn Corporation as a Project Director, assisting Target Inc. Mr. Ross has his Bachelor of ScienceB.A. from New Mexico State University.

William B. Bonello

Jennifer Balliet, age 39. Mrs. BallietChief Strategy Officer, Corporate Development and Investor Relations

Mr. Bonello has served as the Chief Strategy and Corporate Development Officer, Treasurer, and Director of Corporate Development since April 2017. Prior to joining NeoGenomics, Mr. Bonello spent nearly twenty years as a healthcare equity analyst covering diagnostic services and product stocks for Piper Jaffray, Wachovia Securities, RBC, and Craig Hallum Capital Group. Mr. Bonello also worked for many years at LabCorp as the Senior Vice President for Investor Relations. Mr. Bonello has an undergraduate degree from Carleton College and earned his MBA from the Kellogg School of Human Resources since April 2015. Mrs. Balliet joined NeoGenomics in 2008, having previouslyManagement at Northwestern University.

John Park

Chief Marketing Officer

Mr. Park has served as Director of Human Resources. During her time withthe Chief Marketing Officer since 2018. Prior to joining NeoGenomics, she managed the Human Resources process as the Company grew from 100 employees to 450 employees. AsMr. Park was Vice President & General Manager of Human Resources, Mrs. Balliet has responsibilitythe Healthcare Consumables business at PDC Healthcare, responsible for all areasleading sales and marketing. Prior to this role, Mr. Park spend over 10 years at Baxter BioScience (currently known as Takeda) in a variety of our Human Resources including recruiting, training, development, compensation, incentive planscommercial positions. His last position at the company was as Vice President, Global Marketing. Prior to Baxter, John spent six years as a management consultant with CSC Healthcare Group (APM Management Consultants) working with payers, providers and organizational development. Mrs. Balliet received her B.S. degree in Psychology and M.S. degree in Business Managementlife science clients on strategic as well as operational improvement projects. John graduated from the University of Florida.Southern California with a dual-degree Doctor of Pharmacy and Master of Business Administration. His undergraduate degree is in Biological Sciences from UC Santa Barbara. John is active

on a variety ofnon-profit boards including Adventist Healthcare Simi Valley Hospital Foundation and City Scholars Foundation. John is adjunct faculty/lecturer at USC, UCLA and Brown University.

COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS

Edwin F. Weidig III, age 46Each of our. Edwin F. Weidig IIInon-employee directors, other than Stephen Kanovsky, who served in 2018 as a representative of General Electric (“GE”) and declined director compensation while GE was a stockholder of NeoGenomics, is entitled to receive compensation. Subsequent to GE’s divestment of its ownership position in NeoGenomics, Mr. Kanovsky began to accept compensation as an independent director. For the year ended December 31, 2018, each eligiblenon-employee director received Board compensation of $45,000. In addition, eligiblenon-employee directors who serve on committees receive the following compensation:

All directors are entitled to reimbursement of their reasonableout-of-pocket expenses for attendance at Board and Committee meetings.

The Board has servedthe discretion to grant equity awards tonon-employee directors as Directorpart of Financetheir compensation. On June 1, 2018, the Board granted 3,017 stock options and Principal Accounting Officer since January 2012. Mr. Weidig served6,897 shares of restricted stock to eachnon-employee director, except Stephen Kanovsky. Both the stock options and the restricted stock awards vest on June 1, 2019.

Share Ownership Guidelines and Share Retention Requirements

NeoGenomics has adopted share ownership guidelines for its directors and executive officers to further align the interests of our senior leaders with those of our stockholders. The guidelines require directors to hold NeoGenomics stock worth a value expressed as a multiple of their salary within five years of the guideline applying to them.

The table below summarizes the current share ownership guidelines as well as the Company’s Corporate Controller from October 2007current share ownership of our board as a multiple of base compensation for Board services as of December 31, 2018:

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLES

The following table provides information concerning the compensation of Massachusetts.ournon-employee directors for the year ended December 31, 2018.

COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS

Overview and Philosophy

The Compensation Committee strives to create a compensation structure that supports apay-for-performance culture and strongly believes that executive compensation should be tied to the performance of the Company and stockholder returns.

Our compensation philosophy is focused on providing our executive officers with compensation and benefits that are competitive, and that meet our goals of attracting, retaining and motivating highly skilled management. The levels of compensation we provide should be competitive, reasonable and appropriate for our business needs and circumstances.

Our executive compensation program focuses on both short and long-term results and is composed of three key elements: (1) base salaries, which reflect various factors including market-competitive pay levels, scope of the position, experience, individual performance and strategic criticality; (2) annual cash incentive opportunities, which reflect Company and individual performance; and (3) longer-term stock-based incentive opportunities under our equity incentive plans, generally in the form of stock options and/or restricted stock grants, which link the interests of senior management with our other stockholders. Equity incentive grants are subject to three or four year vesting provisions. Each of our compensation elements is designed to simultaneously fulfill one or more of our core objectives.

Our compensation program is administered under a rigorous process that includes the solicitation by the Compensation Committee of advice of an independent third-party consultant (which reports directly to the Compensation Committee, not to management) and long-standing, consistently applied policies with respect to the timing of equity grants, the pricing of stock options, and the periodic review of peer group practices.

We believe our overall program, and, in particular, our focus on granting long-term awards, is consistent with current best practices in compensation design.

2018 Performance Highlights

Most of our compensation decisions are determined in the first few months of our fiscal year, after evaluation of Company performance and the performance of our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers. We believe the compensation of all of our Named Executive Officers for 2018 aligned well with both our performance in 2018 and the objectives of our executive compensation policies. The Company achieved strong operational and financial performance across a broad range of measures.

EXECUTIVE AND DIRECTOR COMPENSATIONCompensation Design

Compensation Strategy

We believe that having the right management team leading NeoGenomics and our employees globally is critical in our ability to achieve our financial and strategic objectives. Our compensation philosophy is to offer our executive officers compensation and benefits that are competitive and meet our goals of attracting, retaining and motivating highly skilled management, which is necessary to achieve our financial and strategic

14

objectives and create long-term value for our stockholders. We believe the levels of compensation we provide should be competitive, reasonable, and appropriate for our business needs and circumstances.

2015Alignment with NeoGenomics’ Strategy

NeoGenomics is a premier cancer diagnostics and pharma services company serving oncologists, pathologists, pharmaceutical companies, academic centers, and others with innovative diagnostic, prognostic and predictive testing. By providing uncompromising quality, exceptional service, and innovative solutions, we will be the world’s leading cancer testing and information company.

Underpinned by our values of Quality, Integrity, Accountability, Teamwork, and Innovation, we believe that focusing on saving lives by improving patient care will drive profitable growth for our stockholders to the benefit of all our stakeholders.

This vision is reflected in how we have designed our compensation programs, with performance metrics that focus on our achievements.

Compensation Elements

Our compensation program is purposefully straightforward. In accordance with our compensation philosophy, we provide competitive fixed cash compensation, an annual incentive program that aligns pay within-year progress against our longer term goals, and stock options and/or restricted stock that provide clear and transparent alignment to sustainable stockholder value creation, while retaining our executives over the long-term.

The aggregate value of base salary, target bonus and long-term incentives is generally positioned within a competitive range around market median.

As the following charts show, the majority of our CEO and other named executive officers’ compensation is variable and performance based:

Compensation Governance

Compensation Oversight

The Compensation Committee, chaired by Lynn A. Tetrault and comprised of three independent Directors, is responsible for discharging the Board’s responsibilities relating to compensation of our executive officers, including the Chief Executive Officer. The Committee has overall responsibility for approving and evaluating all of our compensation plans, policies and programs as they affect our executive officers. This includes reviewing and approving the compensation of the Named Executive Officers, approving performance goals, and reviewing the achievement of performance goals at year end.

In exercising its duties, the Compensation Committee receives information and support from management, and guidance from an independent advisor.

The Compensation Committee is wholly accountable for any changes in compensation for the Chief Executive Officer, and the Chief Executive Officer is not included in any discussions regarding changes to his own compensation. For other Named Executive Officers, recommendations are made by the Chief Executive Officer and subsequently reviewed and approved by the Compensation Committee.

The Annual Process

The Compensation Committee typically meets four times a year to consider the following items:

Additional meetings are scheduled on an as needed basis.

Use of an Independent Advisor

As outlined in its Charter, the Compensation Committee has the authority to select, retain, and/or replace, as needed, compensation and benefits consultants and other outside consultants to provide independent advice to the Compensation Committee.

In 2016, the Compensation Committee appointed Willis Towers Watson as an independent outside compensation consultant. During 2018, Willis Towers Watson advised the Compensation Committee on peer group development, market practices, industry trends, investor views and benchmark compensation data. In addition, they reviewed and provided the Compensation Committee with an independent perspective of management recommendations. These duties were consistent with those performed in prior years.

The Compensation Committee considered the six factors specified by the Securities and Exchange Commission to monitor the independence of their compensation advisors. As was the case in 2016 and 2017, the Compensation Committee determined that Willis Towers Watson’s services during 2018 did not raise a conflict of interest.

Managing Compensation-Related Risks

NeoGenomics operates in a highly regulated, competitive and fast-moving field, meaning that risk management is core to our success. It is the common purpose of all NeoGenomics employees to save lives by improving patient care; and this shared common purpose underscores our commitment to performance excellence in a risk-appropriate manner.

The Compensation Committee’s role relative to risk mitigation is to review the risks associated with NeoGenomics’ compensation policies and practices to determine whether any risks associated with such policies and practices encourage unnecessary or excessive risk-taking or are reasonably likely to

have a material adverse effect on the company. The Compensation Committee also oversees an annual review of the Corporation’s risk assessment of its compensation policies and practices for its employees.

The risk-mitigating features that NeoGenomics has adopted within our executive compensation programs are summarized below.

Clawback

In the event of a restatement of the NeoGenomics’ financials due to material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement under the law, whether such noncompliance is the result of misconduct or other circumstances, a Participant shall be required to reimburse the Company for any amounts earned or payable with respect to an Award to the extent required by law and any applicable Company policies.

Share Ownership Guidelines and Share Retention Requirements

NeoGenomics has adopted share ownership guidelines to further align the interests of our senior executives with those of our stockholders. The guidelines require covered roles to hold NeoGenomics stock worth a value expressed as a multiple of their salary within five years of the guideline applying to them.

The table below summarizes the current share ownership guidelines for our Named Executive Officers as a multiple of salary as of December 31, 2018:

In light of stockholder expectations, predominant market practice, and a desire to receive more frequent insight on stockholder views regarding our Named Executive Officers’ compensation, subject to approval at the 2019 Annual Meeting, NeoGenomics will move to an annual vote on Named Executive Officers’ compensation. The outcomes of these advisory votes will continue to inform the Compensation Committee’s thinking as it evaluates the appropriateness and effectiveness of NeoGenomics’ approach to executive compensation.

Compensation Peer Group

In evaluating executive compensation, the Compensation Committee considers a number of factors including:

Given the fast-changing nature of our industry, the Compensation Committee reviews the compensation peer group annually, with input from Willis Towers Watson. Consideration is given to relative size (revenue, number of employees and market capitalization) and nature of business (business focus and model) of the organizations.

The Compensation Committee has consciously chosen to adopt a compensation peer group that is, on the whole, different from the group of companies with which our business competes. This is primarily due to the fact that many of our direct business competitors are either much larger or smaller than us in terms of size and scope, meaning the compensation data would not necessarily be appropriate to inform decision-making regarding executive compensation levels at NeoGenomics.

The 2018 compensation peer group comprised the following 20 companies:

* Indicates companies excluded from CEO pay vs. performance graph below as three years of stock data is not available.

CTO Biopharma and NewLink Genetics were removed for 2018 because they fell outside the desired range of revenue and market capitalization. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Nanostring Technologies, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, and Sucampo Pharmaceuticals were added for 2018 because they met industry selection criteria and fell within the desired ranges for revenue and market capitalization.

Assessment of the Chief Executive Officer’s Compensation

As noted above, one of the Compensation Committee’s annual activities is to assess the total compensation of the Chief Executive Officer related to our compensation peer group.

Each year, the Compensation Committee assesses the total compensation of our CEO in relation to the total compensation of the CEO of our peers. The peer group used for this purpose is our compensation peer group as defined above.

The following graph shows the relationship of our CEO’s total compensation as set forth in the 2017 Summary Compensation Table and the change in stock price for the three years ended December 31, 2015, 2016 and 2017 (annualized) as compared to the companies included in our peer group, as defined above. Data for the most recent year ended December 31, 2018 was not used in this graph as the CEO compensation was not available for this period for all companies presented.

Establishing Performance Targets

Performance targets are set in the first quarter at the time of the Board’s annual budgeting session to ensure that our executives’ compensation opportunities are aligned with our short and long-term strategic goals. The performance targets are designed to reward achievement of specific financial, strategic and individual performance goals. We use an annual performance management process for our executives to assess individual performance, as well as a variety of distinct performance metrics that are shared among the executive team. As part of this process, each executive, including each of our NEOs, establishes his or her performance goals with input and approval from the CEO. Shared performance metrics are reviewed and approved by the Compensation Committee.

2018 Compensation Decisions and Outcomes

An Overview of Performance in 2018

The Compensation Committee considers the financial performance of the Company in making compensation decisions. The Compensation Committee believes that compensation should be tied to the performance of the Company as well as the return to stockholders.

The primary metrics used in the evaluation of financial performance of the Company are revenue and adjusted EBITDA. During 2018, we reported record revenue of $277 million, representing 15.2% year over year growth. Revenue per test also improved 1.2% while we were able to reduce cost per test 4.6% year over year. Adjusted EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2018 was $43.6 million, which represents an increase of 29.6% year over year.

These performance achievements in addition to company and individual goals, resulted in annual incentive awards ranging from 110% - 150% of target.

We have presented below the cumulative total return to our stockholders of $100 during the period from December 31, 2013 through December 31, 2018 in comparison to the cumulative return of the S&P 500 Index and a customized group of six publicly traded companies (Cancer Genetics, Inc., Enzo Biochem, Inc., Genomic Health, Inc., Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Myriad Genetics, Inc., and Quest Diagnostics, Inc.) during that same time period. As outlined above, while this peer group represents our direct business competitors, a number of them are either much larger or smaller than us in terms of size and scope, so they are not all included in our compensation peer group.

The results assume that $100 (with reinvestment of all dividends) was invested in our common stock, the index, and in the peer group and relative performance tracked through December 31, 2018.

Our Named Executive Officers in 2018

The following individuals were Named Executive Officers in 2018.

(1) Served as Chief Financial Officer from 2009 to March 2018.

2018 Base Salary

2018 Annual Incentive

The annual incentive is a performance bonus, paid in cash that is designed to incentivize and reward Named Executive Officers for operating results, both financial and strategic. The 2018 performance goals were approved by the Compensation Committee at the start of the fiscal year and communicated to each of our Named Executive Officers. In 2018, bonus opportunities and outcomes for the Named Executive Officers were as follows:

The weight of each measure for 2018 was as follows:

Our Compensation Committee approved the CEO’s recommendations for the individual performance ratings of executives (other than the CEO). Individual performance ratings of the CEO were approved based on an evaluation of performance by the Compensation Committee. Individual performance ratings were based on individual goals, some of the key achievements included the following: