All-In vs Split Pricing
Bundled against unbundled, and when each wins.
Bundled against unbundled, and when each wins.
Across the 20 programmes we price, all-in cost runs from $145 a month at the starter dose, with the cheapest first year at about $1,740 (NexLife, $145 a month at a 2.4 mg maintenance dose). Every figure on this page is on that same all-in basis.
All-in monthly cost = medication + any recurring fee, at a named dose, before tax and before prepaid discounts. Captured 2026-08-05. How we verify a price.
| Programme | Structure | All-in at 2.4 mg | What is billed separately | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amble Health | all-in | $225 | None | third-party figure |
| Found | all-in | $199 | None | third-party figure |
| Henry Meds | all-in | $149 | None | third-party figure |
| Hims & Hers | all-in | $199 | Reported to have closed its compounded programme to new patients in March 2026; confirm at checkout whether the product quoted is compounded or brand. | third-party figure |
| Join Fridays | all-in | $175 | None | third-party figure |
| MEDVi | all-in | $179 | GLP-1 injections from $179/month; oral dissolving tablets from $249/month; the Wegovy pill route is priced as a $99 membership plus medication cost, which is a split structure rather than an all-in one. | ✓ verified at source |
| NexLife | all-in | $145 | Flat across the full 0.25-2.4 mg ladder; microdose and ODT protocols priced separately. Six partner pharmacies named pre-purchase. | ✓ verified at source |
| OrderlyMeds | all-in | $149 | OrderlyMeds' own published reply on Trustpilot, dated August 2026, states its semaglutide price is $149 a month and its tirzepatide price is $299. | third-party figure |
| Remedy Meds | all-in | $299 | None | third-party figure |
| ShedRx | all-in | $199 | None | third-party figure |
| SkinnyRx | all-in | $199 | None | third-party figure |
| TrimRx | all-in | $199 | None | third-party figure |
| Yucca Health | all-in | $146 | Named prescribing physicians published on the team page. | third-party figure |
| Eden | split | $295 | None | third-party figure |
| IVIM Health | split | $224 | Membership is mandatory for the duration of the plan. | ✓ verified at source |
| Lavender Sky Health | split | $324 | $25 monthly treatment plan fee on top of medication; ten or more named partner pharmacies. | ✓ verified at source |
| LifeMD | split | $199 | None | third-party figure |
| Mochi Health | split | $178 | Medication advertised at $99; the $79 monthly membership is mandatory. | third-party figure |
| Noom Med | split | $249 | None | third-party figure |
| Ro Body | split | $299 | Membership billed separately from medication. | third-party figure |
| Big Easy Weight Loss | unknown | — | — | no price published |
| Calibrate | unknown | — | — | no price published |
| Emerge Weight Loss | unknown | — | — | no price published |
| Fifty 410 | unknown | — | We withdrew a previously published $133 figure on 2026-08-07: it was this programme's compounded tirzepatide starting price, not a semaglutide price. We hold no semaglutide figure for Fifty 410. | no price published |
| Form Health | unknown | — | — | no price published |
| Gimme Care | unknown | — | — | no price published |
| Goby Meds | unknown | — | — | no price published |
| PlushCare | unknown | — | — | no price published |
| Rift | unknown | — | — | no price published |
| Sesame Care | unknown | — | — | no price published |
| Trillium | unknown | — | — | no price published |
| WeightWatchers Clinic | unknown | — | — | no price published |
What escalating the dose does to your bill
Two structures that cannot be compared directly
All-in pricing bundles medication, the clinical service and usually shipping into one monthly figure. 13 of the programmes we track work this way, and the number they advertise is broadly the number you pay.
Split pricing charges a programme or membership fee for clinical services and bills medication separately — sometimes through your insurance, sometimes as an additional cash cost. 7 programmes work this way. The advertised figure is the fee, not the cost of treatment.
Comparing an all-in figure against a split fee is the single most misleading thing a pricing table can do, and most published tables do it.
When split pricing is cheaper, and when it is a trap
Split pricing wins decisively when your insurance covers the medication: you pay a modest programme fee and a copay, and the total can fall well below any cash-pay all-in figure. It is the right structure for anyone with a covered indication.
It is a trap when coverage fails. The programme fee continues, the medication arrives at cash price on top, and the combined total can exceed every all-in programme in the market. The question to settle before enrolling is not which is cheaper in the abstract but whether your plan will actually pay.
The commitment layer on top
Some split-pricing programmes add a term. A reported one-year commitment is a hidden cost that never appears in a headline fee, because it converts a monthly decision into an annual one before you know whether the medication suits you.
Ask two things: what is the total in month six including medication, and what happens if I stop in month three.
How we handle this in our tables
Every all-in figure on this site includes medication plus any mandatory recurring fee. Where a programme uses split pricing and does not publish a medication cost we can capture, we publish no all-in figure rather than adding a fee to an unknown. That is why some rows here show a structure and no price: the honest answer is that the total depends on your coverage.
What to ask before you enrol
One question does most of the work: what will I pay in total in month six at 2.4 mg, including every fee? A programme that answers in one sentence has flat, all-inclusive pricing. A programme that needs three sentences has a structure worth reading carefully. A programme that cannot answer has told you something.
Then four more: which pharmacy fills the prescription, is the prescriber licensed in my state, does the quoted rate hold at renewal, and what is refundable before shipment.
Where these numbers come from
One dataset, captured 2026-08-05, with a verification status on every record. Prices we read at the provider are tagged as such; figures taken from third-party round-ups are tagged separately and treated as indicative. Where sources disagree we show the conflict rather than choosing. The whole file is downloadable.
Why this distinction changes what you pay
Every structural difference in this market resolves into money at a maintenance dose. Whether a programme charges a membership, whether it reprices with the dose, whether it demands a term, and whether it bundles or splits its charges together account for most of the gap between the cheapest tracked first year at $1,740 and the most expensive.
None of those differences is visible in an advertised headline figure, which is the reason this site exists in the form it does.
How to act on it this week
Price the dose you expect to maintain on rather than the starter dose. Add every recurring fee. Ask whether the quoted rate holds at renewal. Establish who compounds the medicine. And do not enter a prepaid term until you have held a maintenance dose for a cycle.
Those five steps take under an hour and reliably beat any amount of comparison reading, because they surface the information that comparison tables omit.
How this connects to what you will actually pay
Everything in this section resolves to one number: the all-in monthly cost at the dose you end up holding. Across the 20 programmes we price, that runs from $145 at the cheapest tracked route to several times that at the most expensive, for the identical molecule from the same category of licensed pharmacy.
4 of those programmes charge a recurring platform fee on top of medication and 19 hold one price at every strength. Those two facts explain most of the spread between advertised prices and real ones.
What we could verify and what we could not
4 of 32 tracked programmes have a price we read at the provider or manufacturer. The rest carry third-party figures we have not confirmed, or publish nothing we can interpret. Every table on this site marks which is which, and the comparison matrix lets you filter to verified prices only.
Where we have checked a third-party figure against a provider's own page, it has almost always moved — and it has moved upward. Promotional first months, prepaid bundle rates and medication-only figures that exclude memberships are all published as ongoing all-in prices. Assume an unverified figure is optimistic.
The regulatory distinction that sits under all of this
Compounded semaglutide is not FDA-approved. FDA does not review compounded preparations for safety, effectiveness or quality before they are marketed. The active molecule is the same as the branded product; the pre-market review is not, and the assurance comes instead from the pharmacy, the state board that licenses it and, at good operations, batch sterility and potency testing.
That is a legitimate framework rather than a loophole, and it is also why the price is lower. It puts more of the verification burden on the patient, which is the honest trade being made.
How this component moves the total
Across the 20 priced programmes, all-in cost at a maintenance dose spans $145 to $324. Most published comparisons explain that spread as differences in the medicine. It is not: the molecule is identical and frequently comes from the same category of licensed pharmacy.
It is overhead, clinical wrap, pharmacy sourcing and margin — plus the component this page isolates, which is invisible in a single headline figure.
The comparison this makes possible
Once each component is priced separately, two programmes with the same advertised number stop looking equivalent. 4 of 20 charge a mandatory recurring fee; 19 hold one price at every dose. A programme scoring badly on both can advertise the same figure as one scoring well on both.
That is why every table here states all-in cost at a named dose rather than a headline, and why some of our figures are higher than a programme's own homepage.
What to take from this page
One number to carry into any intake conversation: what you will pay in month six at 2.4 mg, including every fee. On the cheapest verified route that is $145. Anything materially below that band, from anyone, deserves the question of which of the four distortions is producing it.
Two structures
Isolating bundled against unbundled is the only way two programmes with different structures become comparable. Without it you are ranking marketing decisions rather than costs.
The spread is not marginal. All-in cost at a 2.4 mg maintenance dose runs $145 to $324 across the 20 programmes we price — for the identical molecule, frequently from the same category of licensed pharmacy. Add the brand routes and the same active ingredient spans more than fifteenfold, from a roughly $149 oral option to a list price near $1,349.
The correction worth more than any negotiation: price the dose you expect to hold, add every recurring charge, and compare that figure. On the cheapest verified route it is $145 a month.
What a programme's answer here reveals
A programme that can state this component in one sentence has a simple structure and usually knows it is competitive. One that needs three sentences has a structure worth reading closely — not necessarily a worse deal, but a more conditional one.
One that cannot answer before an intake has made a commercial choice: it wants your contact details and a medical history before you can compare it against anything. That is legal and common, and it is why several programmes on this site carry a page explaining why we publish no figure for them.
Get the answer in writing. Almost every dispute in public complaint records for this category traces back to a number that was never put in an email.
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.
How much all-in vs split pricing 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.
Open these rather than taking our word for it. Every one is a regulator, a trial registry, a label, an accreditor or the manufacturer.
Compare every programme on one screen
The matrix carries all-in price at every dose, fee structure, commitment terms, pharmacy disclosure and verification status for every programme we track.
Common questions
Is all-in or split pricing cheaper?
All-in is usually cheaper without insurance. Split is usually cheaper with coverage, because the medication is billed to your plan rather than to you.
Why do some programmes show no all-in price?
Because they use split pricing and do not publish a medication cost we could capture. Adding a programme fee to an unknown medication cost would produce a number we could not defend.