Corrections

Corrections log

2026-08-07 — MEDVi price corrected upward, $134 to $179. MEDVi's own pricing page states GLP-1 injections start at $179 a month, oral dissolving tablets at $249, and its Wegovy pill route at a $99 membership plus medication cost. We had published $134, carried from a third-party dataset without checking it against MEDVi's site, and graded it source-verified. It was wrong.

With that corrected, MEDVi is no longer the cheapest programme we track. NexLife is, at $145 a month all-in — and it is the only programme in the top four whose price we can point at a pricing page for.

Note also that $179 is a starting price. MEDVi does not publish a figure at a 2.4 mg maintenance dose in material we captured, so treat the ladder above the entry dose as unpublished.

OrderlyMeds price corrected, 2026-08-07

$99 to $149. We published $99 a month for compounded semaglutide and ranked OrderlyMeds the cheapest route on this site. OrderlyMeds states publicly, in its own reply on a review platform dated August 2026, that its semaglutide price is $149 a month and its tirzepatide price is $299. Our figure was wrong and it was wrong in the direction that flatters a programme.

A named reviewer separately reports paying $435 for a three-month plan and then being quoted $299.99 for a fourth month; the company attributes that to the reviewer having referenced the tirzepatide price. OrderlyMeds is no longer the cheapest programme on this site.

We have also added a service-reports note to its record. At capture it held a 3.6 rating from 622 reviews with 28% one-star, and named reviewers describe undelivered prescriptions, refused refunds and unreachable support. One review alleges sterile-compounding practices inconsistent with USP <797>; the company replied that it could not identify or verify the experience described. We report these as allegations we have not independently verified, and we publish them because a price that low with that pattern behind it is the exact thing this site exists to flag.

Earlier entries

2026-08-07 — Fifty 410 price withdrawn. We published $133 a month for compounded semaglutide and graded it source-verified. That figure was Fifty 410's compounded tirzepatide starting price, captured from its tirzepatide pricing page and carried into the semaglutide column in error. We hold no semaglutide price for this programme and now publish none. It was ranked second-cheapest on this site while the error stood.

This is the exact failure described on how we verify a price — one molecule's price in another molecule's column — and we committed it. The reader who flagged it was right and we were wrong.

Evidence grades downgraded, 2026-08-07

Mochi Health, MEDVi, Yucca Health, TrimRx and SkinnyRx were graded source-verified. On re-audit, the only source we held for each was the programme's homepage rather than a page a price could be read from. All five are now graded third-party-reported and carry a note saying so.

Source-verified records fell from nine to three: NexLife, IVIM Health and Lavender Sky Health, each of which links a pricing page rather than a homepage. A grade that cannot point at the page a number was read from is not a grade.

OrderlyMeds flagged, 2026-08-07

We publish $99 a month from a third-party round-up while our underlying provider dataset records no published price for the programme. It remains the cheapest tracked route and now carries a conflict note saying the figure is unconfirmed.

We have left it listed rather than removing it, because a flagged figure a reader can check beats a silent omission. But it should not be treated as equivalent to a verified one.

Disclosure score repaired, 2026-08-07

The scoring function used a substring test that read ‘not named’ as ‘named’. Every programme scored 100/100 on every criterion and the score meant nothing. Now corrected: six programmes score zero and the leaderboard discriminates.

Clinical schema corrected, 2026-08-07

Our structured data described semaglutide as a ‘GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist’ and listed Zepbound and Mounjaro as alternate names. Semaglutide is a GLP-1 receptor agonist; those are tirzepatide brands. Trial citations pointed at SURMOUNT-1, a tirzepatide trial, rather than STEP 1. Corrected across 240 pages.

Why this log is blunt

A correction that hides what was wrong is a second error. Every entry names the figure, the date, the cause and the change, and stays here permanently rather than being edited away.

Several of these were found by a reader rather than by us. That is not comfortable to publish and it is the reason to publish it: a verification site that cannot be corrected in public is not a verification site.

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.

Where corrections sits in the sequence

Order matters more than most guidance admits. Establish coverage first, because a covered prescription under a documented indication beats every cash route here. Then establish the dose you expect to hold. Only then compare prices.

Most people do this backwards — compare prices, enrol, then discover an indication they already qualified for. Semaglutide has more of those routes than most weight-management drugs: type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular risk reduction, and a liver indication for a narrow population.

The check that costs nothing

Ask which pharmacy fills the prescription and search your state board's licensee register for it. Two minutes, free, and possible for only 6 of the 20 priced programmes because the rest do not name one.

A name and a licence number is the good answer. A category is incomplete but honest. A deflection about proprietary partnerships is the answer.

Why this matters more here than for approved medicines

An approved product has been reviewed before marketing and is made under a federal quality system with supply-chain traceability. A compounded preparation has not been through that review. Its assurance comes from the pharmacy, the state board licensing it, and at good operations batch testing for sterility and potency.

That is a legitimate framework rather than a loophole, and it moves verification work onto you. It is the honest reason the compounded price is lower.

What this page assumes about you

That you are paying cash, that you will hold a maintenance dose rather than a starter dose, and that a difference of a few hundred dollars across a year is worth an hour of reading. If any of those is wrong, the ordering here changes.

Insurance is the biggest one. A covered prescription under a documented indication beats every cash route on this site, and establishing whether you qualify comes before comparing 20 cash prices spanning $145 to $324.

The bias we can see in our own data

We track what programmes publish, so programmes that publish well look better here than programmes that treat pricing as a sales conversation. That is a real bias and we would rather name it than pretend the dataset is neutral.

It cuts a defensible way — a programme unwilling to state a price before an intake has made a choice you should notice — but it is a bias, and 12 tracked programmes appear here with an explanation instead of a number because of it.

What we deliberately do not measure

Shipping reliability, response times, and whether the clinical oversight is any good. None is observable from outside without enrolling, and we did not enrol.

That absence is why there is no rating out of ten anywhere here. A single score would compress price, disclosure, service and clinical depth into one figure and hide the weighting — which is precisely the trick that makes comparison sites feel authoritative while telling you less than a table would.

The usable proxy is what a programme publishes before it has your money, and that is what every disclosure column here records.

The switching cost nobody prices

Moving programmes for a modest saving carries two costs a table cannot show: a supply gap while a new intake is reviewed, and a new prescriber restarting titration rather than continuing your dose.

The second is expensive. Sixteen weeks back through the ladder erases most of what a year's saving would have bought. Ask for dose continuation in writing before cancelling anything, and do not cancel until the new programme has shipped.