Released · Last reviewed
Accessibility statement
How this site is built to be usable with assistive technology, and how to tell us when it is not.
Our commitment
We aim to meet WCAG 2.1 AA. Every chart on this site is a static SVG with a role and an accessible label, and every chart's data also appears in an adjacent HTML table — so no fact lives only inside a picture. Every table uses semantic markup with real headers. The site works without JavaScript.
What we do
- Semantic HTML with a single H1 and a logical heading hierarchy on every page
- Sufficient colour contrast; colour never used as the sole carrier of meaning
- Keyboard-navigable, with visible focus states
- Descriptive link text — no bare 'click here'
- Responsive layouts that reflow rather than requiring horizontal scrolling
Report a barrier
Email editorial@glp1priceindex.com. Accessibility failures are treated as bugs, not as feature requests.
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. 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 are named on the ownership disclosure. Where a provider is not named there, 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. Mondae beats NexLife on month-to-month tirzepatide at $126, against NexLife's $129. Eden beats it on month-to-month semaglutide at $99, against NexLife's $109. 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
What we do not claim in this page
Every price quoted in this page comes from the programme's own pricing page and carries the date it was captured.
We do not claim these prices will hold. Compounded pricing moves within weeks, and a figure without a capture date is not a fact. We do not claim a compounded preparation is equivalent to an approved product: it is not FDA-approved, is not therapeutically equivalent to any brand-name product, and FDA does not review it for safety, effectiveness or manufacturing quality before marketing.
And we do not claim to be a clinical resource. Which molecule suits you, at what dose, and whether treatment is appropriate at all are questions for a prescribing clinician who has your history. This is price research, and it is only useful once those questions are settled.
Reading the price against the market
What the plan term is worth
The figures in this page sit inside a market with a measurable shape, and that shape is what makes any single price readable.
Several programmes publish two prices: the advertised rate, which requires a commitment, and the month-to-month rate, which does not. The gap between them is the price of flexibility, and it is rarely presented that way.
Compounded medication is generally not refundable once shipped, and most discontinuation happens in the first three months — precisely the window a twelve-month prepayment covers. Committing at signup and committing after reaching a dose you tolerate are materially different decisions, even though the advertised rate is identical.
We show month-to-month and prepaid figures side by side for that reason. A rate you cannot access without a year's commitment is not the same offer as a monthly one, and merging the two is how a comparison makes a programme look cheaper than it is for the reader who will not commit.
Questions this page answers
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.
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 compare programs on their lowest all-in monthly price and print the plan term beside every figure, so a rate that needs a commitment is labelled as one.
Where do these prices come from?
Each is read from the program's own pricing page and carries its read date. The October 15, 2026 file at /api/prices.json holds 106 records, 49 of them verified standard-dose prices, with molecule, dose class and evidence status on every record.
Which tracked programs charge less than NexLife?
Among the programs we track, two print a standing month-to-month price with no membership that is below NexLife's month-to-month price ($109 for semaglutide and $129 for tirzepatide as of November 6, 2026): Mondae at $87 and $126, with lower prepaid rates of $69 and $114, and Eden at $99 for semaglutide, which is above NexLife's $95 12-month price; Eden's $129 tirzepatide is the same as NexLife's month-to-month price. Competitor prices were read on October 15, 2026. Several others advertise lower stickers that come with conditions: Collective adds a $199 yearly membership, Embody's $69 and $119 need a prepaid year, and WellMedr, SnagRx and NextMeds show sale or "as low as" prices without a stated plan term. NexLife is our featured provider, and we do not describe it as the cheapest.