Citation Policy

What this page covers

How we cite, and when we decline to. Everything on this site rests on one dataset with a capture date and an evidence status on every record, and this page states how that applies here.

How to check us

Download the price index and sort it yourself. The order should match our tables. Follow any provider link to its own pricing page and compare. If our figure and theirs differ, ours is wrong and we want to know.

What we cannot tell you

Whether a programme ships on time, whether messages get answered, or whether semaglutide is appropriate for you. The first two we do not measure and will not guess at; the third belongs to a licensed clinician with your history in front of them.

Independence

No programme pays for placement, position or the removal of a criticism. Rankings are computed from the published dataset rather than assigned. Where commercial links exist they are disclosed on the page carrying them and cannot affect an order that is generated from data.

Corrections

Substantive errors — a wrong price, a misstated term, a ranking moved by bad data — are logged with the date they were fixed. A site publishing prices in a fast-moving market that never records a correction is not being careful; it is not checking. Report anything you believe is wrong through contact.

The standard this site holds itself to

Publish what can be verified, label what cannot, and record what changed. Those three rules generate everything else: why 4 of 32 programmes carry a verified tag and the rest do not, why some rows are blank, and why corrections appear on the page where the error was rather than in a log nobody reads.

They also explain what is missing. There are no ratings out of ten, no star scores and no aggregate quality judgements, because we cannot measure service quality from outside and inventing a number for it would corrupt the figures that are real.

Why the dataset is published rather than described

Every table on this site is generated from one file: 32 programmes with all-in cost at five dose tiers, first-year totals, fee structure, commitment terms, care model, pharmacy disclosure, evidence status and source, each with a capture date.

That file is downloadable. Sort it by first-year cost and it should reproduce our cheapest ranking exactly. If it does not, that is a bug or a lie, and you can find it without our help. A comparison site that will not publish its own data is asking to be trusted rather than checked.

The commercial conflict, named

Comparison sites in health are funded by the companies they rank. That creates an obvious incentive to rank the highest-paying option first and describe the arrangement vaguely, and it is the reason readers are right to be sceptical of every site in this category.

The defences available are boring and checkable: compute rankings from a published dataset on a stated sort key, publish the dataset, log corrections publicly, and record negative facts about highly ranked programmes. None of that proves good faith. It makes bad faith detectable, which is the most any publisher can honestly offer.

What good looks like in this market

A programme that publishes its price at every dose tier, names the pharmacy that compounds the medicine, states its cancellation terms before you pay, and can decline to prescribe. Those four together are rarer than they should be, and they cost a programme nothing except the ability to advertise a number that is not the number.

The cheapest tracked route currently runs $145 a month all-in at a 2.4 mg maintenance dose, about $1,740 for a first year. That figure is what a well-informed buyer should be measuring every other offer against.

Where this sits against the dataset

The figures behind this page come from one file: 32 programmes, all-in cost at five dose tiers, terms, care model, pharmacy disclosure, evidence status and source, each with a capture date. All-in cost at a maintenance dose runs $145 to $324 across it.

Change the file and every table, ranking and calculator changes with it. There is no separate editorial layer to adjust, which is the structural reason a policy page here can describe a rule rather than an intention.

What it would take to prove us wrong

Download the dataset, sort it on the criterion named in any ranking title, and check whether our published order reproduces. Then open any provider link and compare our figure to theirs. Both checks take minutes and neither requires trusting us.

If they disagree, that is a bug or a lie and we would rather hear about it than have it found later by someone with less reason to be generous.

How much citation policy should weigh

Less than the dose question and more than the brand. 19 of 20 programmes hold one price from 0.25 mg to 2.4 mg; the rest reprice as you climb. Which group you choose changes a twelve-month total more than almost any other single decision.

That is because semaglutide titrates slowly. Sixteen weeks minimum to a maintenance dose, frequently longer for tolerability, and a dose-scaled programme reprices you at every step of it.

Flat pricing is worst value at the bottom of the ladder and best at the top, which makes it less a lower price than insurance against a decision your prescriber has not made yet.

What a well-run programme publishes

Its price at every strength. Its pharmacy. Its prescriber's licensure. Its cancellation notice period. And which form of the active ingredient it compounds from, because FDA has distinguished semaglutide base from salt forms and linked the salts to safety concerns.

That last one is specific to this molecule and almost never asked. Programmes that answer it precisely are telling you how closely they supervise their supply chain.

What the spread actually represents

All-in cost runs $145 to $324 a month for the same molecule from the same category of licensed pharmacy. That gap is not the medicine. It is overhead, clinical wrap, sourcing and margin, plus how aggressively a programme is willing to structure its fees.

4 of 20 charge a mandatory recurring fee and 19 hold one price at every strength. Those two facts explain most of the spread, and neither appears in a headline figure.

Where our numbers could be wrong

A programme changed its price after our capture date. A third-party figure we recorded does not survive checking. A promotional rate was published as a standing one. Or a programme publishes something we could not find.

All four are live risks and the first is near-certain over time. Every figure carries its capture date and a link to the source we read, so the check takes about two minutes and does not require trusting us.

Why the cheapest entries are the least reliable

Four distortions push in the same direction: a promotional first month quoted as a standing rate, a prepaid bundle rate quoted as monthly, a medication figure that excludes a mandatory membership, and occasionally a different molecule's price in the wrong column.

Every one of those makes a programme look cheaper than it is, which is why the bottom of any published table is where errors concentrate. It is also why we mark which figures we read at the provider and which we did not, rather than presenting one confident list.

Where we have been able to check an unconfirmed figure against a provider's own page, the number usually moved upward.

How to sanity-check any figure you find elsewhere

Three questions. What dose does it describe? Does it include every recurring fee? And when was it captured? A price failing any of the three is not comparable to the numbers here, and most published figures fail at least one.

Semaglutide makes this worse than most categories because the same molecule sells under several brands at prices spanning more than fifteenfold. 'Semaglutide costs X' is not a sentence that can be true without naming the product and the channel.