Evidence-based · Methodology v1.0 · Prices verified July 6, 2026
Independent evidence and pricing research for medications, peptides and telehealth care
We read the scientific literature, track what providers actually charge, and mark the difference between what has been verified and what has merely been claimed. Every price carries an evidence status. Every clinical claim traces to a primary source. Where we have not checked something, we say so.
Three things most comparison sites have not caught up to. One: brand prices collapsed. An FDA-approved oral GLP-1 (Foundayo, or the Wegovy tablet) is now $149/month — cheaper than most of the compounded market, and roughly $25 if your insurance covers the brand. Two: compounded ODT and microdose products have no trial evidence at all — every efficacy figure in this field comes from an approved subcutaneous injection. Three: some telehealth platforms resell brand drugs at up to twelve times the manufacturer’s own direct price. Prices verified July 6, 2026.
Medication explorer
Every medication we cover, with its actual regulatory status stated plainly rather than implied.
| Treatment | Form | FDA status | Evidence level | Guide |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tirzepatide | Injection | Approved (Zepbound / Mounjaro) | Strong — SURMOUNT programme | Tirzepatide → |
| Semaglutide | Injection / oral | Approved (Wegovy / Ozempic / Rybelsus) | Strong — STEP and SELECT | Semaglutide → |
| Orforglipron (Foundayo) | Oral | Approved, oral GLP-1 | Trial programme published | Orforglipron → |
| Compounded tirzepatide | Injection | NOT approved as a finished product | None for the compounded product itself | Guide → |
| Compounded semaglutide | Injection | NOT approved | None for the compounded product itself | Guide → |
| Compounded ODT (oral tablet) | Oral / ODT | NOT approved | NO TRIAL HAS TESTED IT | The evidence gap → |
| Tesamorelin | Injection | Approved — for HIV lipodystrophy only | Good, for that one indication | Tesamorelin → |
| Tadalafil / Sildenafil | Oral | Approved; cheap generics | Strong — best-evidenced on this site | PDE5 guides → |
| Sermorelin | Injection | NOT approved (withdrawn 2008) | Weak — mechanism yes, outcomes no | Sermorelin → |
| NAD+ | IV / injection | NOT approved for marketed uses | Weak — mostly mouse data | NAD+ → |
Latest verified pricing
86 priceable offerings across 18 providers, sorted on total monthly cost — medication plus any membership you cannot decline. Introductory rates are flagged and never ranked on.
Brand prices collapsed in late 2025. An FDA-approved oral pill is now $149 — cheaper than most of the compounded market. Meanwhile some platforms resell the same brand drugs at up to twelve times the manufacturer's direct price.
Open the full pricing database →
The finding most comparison sites have not caught up to
An FDA-approved, quality-verified, manufacturer-supplied medication at $149, against a compounded market that mostly runs $169-$399. The catch is dose escalation — Foundayo rises to $199, then $299, then $349 as you titrate, and at the top doses it has its own 45-day refill rule (it drops back to $299 if you refill in time). But for a starting patient, or anyone maintaining on a lower dose, the brand oral pill is now among the cheapest legitimate options in the entire category — and almost no comparison site has caught up.
These are not scams — the prices are disclosed. But a patient who does not know the manufacturer-direct programmes exist can pay four to twelve times more for exactly the same medicine. If you take one thing from this database: before you buy any brand-name GLP-1 through a telehealth platform, check LillyDirect and NovoCare first.
Featured comparison
The comparison that now decides whether any compounded programme is worth using at all.
Compounded vs brand — the whole market
All 86 offerings against the brand floor. Several compounded programmes now cost MORE than brand Zepbound.
ODT vs injection
The ODT costs more and no trial has tested it. The one situation where it still makes sense.
Best GLP-1 programmes
Ranked on published arithmetic — total cost, clinician oversight, pharmacy transparency.
Latest scientific evidence
Every one of these figures comes from an FDA-approved SUBCUTANEOUS INJECTION. None was collected on a compounded preparation, a microdose, or an orally disintegrating tablet. Trial averages are not individual promises.
SURMOUNT-5 — the head-to-head
Tirzepatide −20.2% vs semaglutide −13.7% at 72 weeks. Open-label and Lilly-funded — both caveats belong with it.
SELECT — cardiovascular outcomes
A 20% relative MACE reduction. The absolute reduction was 1.5 points over ~3 years.
STEP 1 — semaglutide
−14.9% at 68 weeks. Applies to the approved 2.4mg injection, not to dose-capped programmes.
Research Journal
An editorial evidence library. Every entry states the design, the population, the funder — and, unusually, what the study does not prove. That last section exists because the commonest misuse of this literature is not misquotation; it is stretching a real result past the dose, population or dosage form that was actually tested.
Popular guides
Cheapest compounded tirzepatide
Six meanings of 'cheapest', kept separate.
No membership fee
Split billing, and what it hides.
Is compounding still legal?
The FDA timeline that closed the market.
GLP-1 cost guide
Every pathway, normalised.
Microdose tirzepatide
The clinical case, and the legal one.
Peptides & sexual health
NAD+, sermorelin, tesamorelin, tadalafil, sildenafil.
Provider comparison
18 providers tracked. Every review carries an annual-cost calculation, a cancellation-terms section, an evidence ledger, and a plain statement of what we have not been able to verify.
All provider reviews
Every provider we track, with the same criteria applied to each.
Head-to-head comparisons
Decision frameworks, not a single declared winner.
How we rank
Weights published before scoring. Clinical safety 25%, pharmacy transparency 20%.
How we evaluate evidence
| Tier | Source | How we use it |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | FDA labels, orders, guidance | Authoritative for regulatory status |
| 2 | PubMed-indexed randomised trials | Primary evidence for efficacy |
| 3 | Systematic reviews and meta-analyses | Strongest for synthesis |
| 4 | ClinicalTrials.gov | Design and registration — not results |
| — | Reddit and patient forums | NEVER as evidence of price, safety or efficacy |
| — | Affiliate comparison sites | NEVER as proof of a medical claim, and never enough to mark a price Verified |
| — | Animal studies | NEVER as proof of a human clinical effect |
Our full source hierarchy → · Source policy →
Editorial team
Clinical content is written and reviewed by licensed clinicians. Every provider score is independently audited before publication, and no employee or representative of any reviewed provider writes, reviews or approves that provider's page.
Kim Callender, NP, FNP-BC
Lead Clinical Reviewer. NPI verified against the CMS registry.
Jonathan Snipes, MD
Medical Reviewer. NPI verified against the CMS registry.
The full editorial team
Who signs off on what, and what is still outstanding.
Corrections and transparency
We also 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 the provider look slightly worse than its own advertising. A publication that only corrects errors in its own favour is not correcting anything.
Corrections policy → · Ownership & funding → · Submit a correction → · Pricing verification →
Stay current
Prices in this market change frequently and the regulatory position on compounding is actively shifting. Rather than a mailing list, we publish machine-readable feeds you can follow directly — no email required, nothing to unsubscribe from:
- Main feed — everything we publish
- Research Journal feed — new study summaries and regulatory updates
- Blog feed — analysis and pricing investigations
- Content review calendar — when each page is next scheduled for re-verification