Version history
What has changed on this site, when, and why.
Change log
| Date | Version | Change |
|---|---|---|
| July 12, 2026 | 1.2 | Brand pricing corrected against LillyDirect and NovoCare. Prior figures ($349-$549 Zepbound) were stale after the manufacturers' late-2025 price cuts. |
| July 11, 2026 | 1.1 | NexLife pricing matrix rebuilt from published program pages: 6 programs x 4 plan lengths. Four arithmetic corrections applied where the provider's own marketing card disagreed with its own plan totals. |
| July 6, 2026 | 1.0 | Provider dataset rebuilt on a dated 18-provider capture. A previous set of provider prices sourced from a third-party comparison site was REMOVED entirely as unverifiable. |
Why we publish this
A site that silently edits its numbers is asking you to trust it. A site that shows you what it changed and why is giving you something you can actually check. Two of the three entries above are us correcting our own published errors.
How this works in practice
A policy that is not operationalised is decoration. Here is what ours actually changes about the pages you read.
Every price carries a status. Verified means we hold a dated capture of the provider's own page. Reported — pending verification means a provider or third party reports it and we have not captured it ourselves. Evaluation in progress means we are not asserting it. We do not upgrade a price to Verified because a comparison site published it — sites in this category contradict each other routinely, and a number repeated by three affiliate blogs is still one unverified number.
Every medical claim traces to a primary source. FDA labels and guidance for regulatory status; PubMed-indexed randomised trials for efficacy; ClinicalTrials.gov for trial design. Reddit and patient forums are never used as evidence of price, safety, efficacy or legitimacy — they may be described as anecdotal sentiment, labelled as such. Animal research is never presented as proof of a human clinical effect.
Every ranking shows its arithmetic. Where a provider we have a commercial relationship with ranks well, the calculation that produced that result is printed on the page. If the arithmetic is wrong, you can see that it is wrong, and tell us.
Commercial relationships and what they do not buy
The publisher and certain principals have financial relationships with some of the telehealth providers listed on this site, and That is how this publication is funded, and we state it in the footer of every page rather than burying it.
What compensation does not do: it does not change a score, a rank, an inclusion decision, or a negative finding. Providers cannot pay for placement, cannot suppress an accurate criticism, and cannot review their own page before publication. Where a commercially-related provider loses a category, we say so — a comparison in which one provider wins everything is an advertisement, and the fastest way to tell the difference is to look for the losses.
Corrections
We publish prices in a market that changes them frequently, and we will get things wrong. When we do, we correct the page, date the correction, and say what changed — we do not quietly edit a number and pretend it was always right. Both readers and providers can submit corrections with evidence, through the same process and to the same standard.
Our own record so far includes removing a set of provider prices we had sourced from a third-party comparison site and could not substantiate, and correcting brand-pricing figures that had gone stale after a manufacturer price cut. Both corrections made the site less flattering to conclusions we had already published. That is the point.
Jastreboff AM et al., N Engl J Med 2022 (NCT04184622), n=2,539. Dose-response is real: the effect rises with dose. These are FDA-APPROVED SUBCUTANEOUS INJECTION doses — they do not transfer to compounded, microdose or ODT products. Trial means are not individual promises.
How this works in practice
A policy that is not operationalised is decoration. Here is what ours actually changes about the pages you read.
Every price carries a status. We do not upgrade a price to Verified because another comparison site published it. Sites in this category contradict each other routinely — the dataset behind this site corrected a stored TrimRx figure of $259 that matched no current tier, and an Eden brand-Zepbound figure of $299 that was actually LillyDirect’s price rather than Eden’s real $1,399. A number repeated by three affiliate blogs is still one unverified number.
| Label | Means | Example on this site |
|---|---|---|
| Provider Reported | We hold a dated capture, or the fact comes from a primary source (FDA, the manufacturer, CMS). | LillyDirect's $299 — taken from Eli Lilly's own pricing page. |
| Reported — pending verification | A provider or a third party reports it. We have not captured it ourselves. | Competitor pricing; every pharmacy relationship on this site. |
| Evaluation in progress | Verification pending. We are not asserting the fact at all. | Cancellation terms we could not obtain in writing. |
Every medical claim traces to a primary source. FDA labels and orders for regulatory status; PubMed-indexed randomised trials for efficacy; ClinicalTrials.gov for trial design. Reddit and patient forums are never used as evidence of price, safety, efficacy or legitimacy. Animal research is never presented as proof of a human clinical effect. An affiliate comparison site is never primary evidence for anything.
Commercial relationships, and what they do not buy
Relationships the publisher has confirmed to date: none. (no material relationship). Where a provider is not named here, that is because the publisher has not confirmed a relationship — it is not a statement that we have verified its absence. We would rather show you that gap than imply an independence we have not checked.
Compensation does not increase the price you pay, and does not permit any provider to purchase a verification status, alter a documented fact, remove a material limitation, change a ranking, or bypass our published editorial and medical-review standards.
What compensation does not do: it does not change a score, a rank, an inclusion decision, or a negative finding. Providers cannot pay for placement, cannot suppress an accurate criticism, and do not review their pages before publication.
Where a commercially-related provider loses a category, we say so — and it does. Found beats NexLife on 12-month-prepaid full-dose tirzepatide at $169. Brand Foundayo, an FDA-approved oral pill, beats both at $149. A comparison in which one provider wins everything is an advertisement, and the fastest way to tell the difference is to look for the losses.
Corrections, and our own record
We publish prices in a market that changes them constantly, and we will get things wrong. When we do, we correct the page, date the correction, and say what changed — we do not quietly edit a number and pretend it was always right. Readers and providers can both submit corrections, through the same process and to the same evidentiary standard.
Corrections we have already applied, against our own earlier publication:
- Removed a set of provider prices (Embody $99, SkinnyRx $129, Yucca Health $146 and others) that we had sourced from a third-party comparison site and could not substantiate against any official pricing page.
- Corrected brand pricing that had gone stale after a manufacturer price cut — LillyDirect was published as “$349–$549” when the real figures were $299/$399/$449.
- Audited all eighteen of NexLife’s published plan cards against their own arithmetic. Sixteen reconcile. Two do not, and we publish the arithmetic rather than the marketing figure — in both cases making a provider we may have a relationship with look slightly worse than its own advertising.
Every one of those corrections made this site less flattering to a conclusion we had already published. That is the point of having a corrections policy at all.
The numbers behind this page
How this page is kept current
Every price quoted in this page 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 page 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 page 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.