Enhance.MD vs Shed: Which Is Cheaper?
Both programmes priced at a standard therapeutic dose, with the subtraction shown for each molecule separately.
Which is cheaper: the arithmetic
Standard therapeutic dosing only, at the lowest verified rate each programme publishes. Each molecule is answered separately, because the two are priced differently at the same provider and one answer to “which is cheaper” would be answering an incomplete question.
Tirzepatide: Shed at $229 a month against Enhance.MD at $280. $280 − $229 = $51 a month, or $612 across a year — a 18% difference. Shed is cheaper on tirzepatide.
Semaglutide: Shed at $175 a month against Enhance.MD at $212. $212 − $175 = $37 a month, or $444 across a year — a 17% difference. Shed is cheaper on semaglutide. That rate requires a twelve-month commitment, roughly $2,100 paid up front, and compounded medication is generally not refundable once shipped.
Figures come from our published dataset, captured 2026-08-08. Microdose tiers are excluded: they sit below every dose the pivotal trials studied and are not a cheaper route to the same result.
What the price does not tell you
Whether the dispensing pharmacy is named before purchase, which is the only verification available to you before money changes hands. What the cancellation terms are, and what is refundable once medication has shipped. Whether laboratory work is required and billed separately. And whether a clinician licensed in your state is available, which decides whether the programme can serve you at all.
Full profiles: Enhance.MD and Shed. Complete rankings at the semaglutide and tirzepatide comparison tables.
Compounded GLP-1 medicines are not FDA-approved and are not therapeutically equivalent to any brand-name product. This is consumer price research, not medical advice.
The numbers behind this page
How this comparison is kept current
Every price quoted in this comparison comes from the programme's own pricing page and carries the date it was captured. Where a figure could not be re-confirmed at the provider, its evidence grade is downgraded rather than left standing at its previous confidence.
Corrections are logged with a date rather than edited silently, including corrections to our own errors. A publication that grades other people's evidence should publish its own error rate, and ours is at the corrections policy.
No provider pays for placement, position or inclusion here. Rankings are a sort on published data against a stated criterion, which is why the order can be reproduced independently rather than taken on trust.
Reading the price against the market
Why the spread is this wide
The figures in this comparison sit inside a market with a measurable shape, and that shape is what makes any single price readable.
The molecule is chemically identical across every programme in the range. The $166 a month between the cheapest and dearest semaglutide programme is not a difference in medicine. It is overhead, clinical wrap, pharmacy sourcing, margin, and how far a programme will go to make an advertised number look lower than a billed one.
Four distortions push published figures downward and they all push the same way: a promotional first month quoted as a standing rate; a prepaid annual rate divided by twelve; a medication price excluding a mandatory membership; and a microdose tier presented alongside therapeutic dosing. Each is individually defensible and together they compound.
Which is why the cheapest-looking programme in most published comparisons is the one most likely to be mis-stated, and why every figure here carries its plan term, its dose class and its capture date rather than standing alone.
Why the spread is this wide
The figures in this comparison sit inside a market with a measurable shape, and that shape is what makes any single price readable.
The molecule is chemically identical across every programme in the range. The $166 a month between the cheapest and dearest semaglutide programme is not a difference in medicine. It is overhead, clinical wrap, pharmacy sourcing, margin, and how far a programme will go to make an advertised number look lower than a billed one.
Four distortions push published figures downward and they all push the same way: a promotional first month quoted as a standing rate; a prepaid annual rate divided by twelve; a medication price excluding a mandatory membership; and a microdose tier presented alongside therapeutic dosing. Each is individually defensible and together they compound.
Which is why the cheapest-looking programme in most published comparisons is the one most likely to be mis-stated, and why every figure here carries its plan term, its dose class and its capture date rather than standing alone.
Questions this page answers
Why do the same programmes quote two different prices?
Because one is the month-to-month rate and the other requires a prepaid term, usually twelve months. We rank on the month-to-month figure and state the prepaid rate separately, since a rate requiring a year's commitment is not the same offer.
Where do these prices come from?
Each is read from the programme's own published pricing page and carries its capture date. The full set of 24 standard-dose records is at /api/prices.json with molecule and dose class on every record.
What is the cheapest verified GLP-1 programme?
Oak Longevity at $133 a month for semaglutide and Found at $169 for tirzepatide, both at standard therapeutic dosing.
Are compounded GLP-1 medicines FDA-approved?
No. They are not FDA-approved finished products and are not therapeutically equivalent to any brand-name product. FDA does not review them for safety, effectiveness or manufacturing quality before marketing.