Methodology

This site is operated by Zanubio SRL (CIF 49033442), registered at Str. Speranței nr. 10, District 2, 020993 Bucharest, Romania. Written enquiries, including corrections and legal notices, go to hello@glp1update.com.

Every figure has a source and a date

The single rule this site is built on: no number is published without the URL it came from and the date we read it. Both are shown on the page, next to the figure.

Every price on this site was read directly from the provider’s own website, pricing page or published terms. We do not take pricing from other comparison sites, aggregator databases or press coverage. We use competitors’ sites only to learn which companies exist, never as a source for a fact about them. For each figure we keep the exact URL, the date, how we verified it, and where available a screenshot of the page as it appeared.

How we normalise prices so they can be compared

Most advertised GLP-1 prices are not comparable as published, and comparing them anyway is the central error in this category. Three things go wrong:

• A membership fee is not a treatment price. Many providers advertise a monthly fee that does not include the medication at all. Ranking a membership fee above a price that includes the drug is nonsense, so we never do it. Providers are split into two tables — medication included, and membership only — and only the medication-inclusive figure is used for ordering.
• Annual prepayment is advertised as a monthly rate. Where a headline rate requires paying twelve months up front, we record the billing period and derive the true monthly figure from the total. We also say that the commitment exists.
• Conditions attach to the headline number. A refill window that raises the price if you are late, an introductory rate that applies to only the first two fills, a promotional price with an expiry date — these are shown alongside the price, not in a footnote, because they are what people actually get caught by.

Where a provider publishes no fixed price, only a “starting at” figure, or figures that contradict each other across its own pages, we record no price and say what we found instead. We would rather publish a gap than a number we cannot stand behind.

How a figure ages

A verified fact decays, so the date we read each figure is shown next to it, with a badge saying whether it is fresh, ageing or stale. Past 90 days a figure is labelled stale. It stays on the page with that label rather than vanishing, so a reader who arrives from a bookmark still gets the facts and their age.

When a provider changes a price, a person compares the new figure with the old one and the evidence before anything on the site changes. No public price here is ever updated automatically.

Scoring

Where a provider is scored, the total combines four factors:

• Pricing (33%). The true monthly cost including medication, and whether the advertised figure holds without a code, a prepayment or a promotional first month.
• Medication (27%). FDA-approved brands versus compounded, how many molecules and forms are offered, whether the dose ladder is priced, and which pharmacy fills it.
• Experience (20%). Cancellation and refund terms, notice periods, whether cancelling ends the bill, and whether the marketing and the terms agree.
• Transparency and reputation (20%).Whether pricing and terms are stated consistently across the provider’s own site, and what its public review record shows.

What this score is not. It does not measure quality of care. A fifth factor for clinical depth was specified and then removed, because it could not be evidenced: of the 28 providers published here, one names its prescriber type and eight state whether a video visit is required. Carrying a quarter of every score on that would have meant ranking providers by which of them happened to publish a staffing page. We would rather publish four factors that mean something than five where one is a guess.

The total is computed from those four factors and nothing else: whether a provider pays us is not one of them, and there is no way for anyone here to set a total by hand. All four are required — a provider assessed on three of them has no total at all, not a total with a hole in it, because the database refuses to compute one. A provider with no component scores is shown as unscored, never as zero.

Current status: none of the 28 providers published here are scored yet. Rather than publish a ranking derived from whatever happened to be easy to measure, the site currently orders providers by the one thing we have verified rigorously: the cheapest price that actually includes medication. Scores appear when the underlying assessment does.

How the match quiz orders results

The match quiz asks six questions and orders every published provider against the answers. It is a separate rule from the score above, and it runs in your browser: your answers are held on your device, are never put in a URL, and are not sent to us or to any analytics service. Session recording is switched off for the length of the quiz.

Results are ordered by, in this order:

1. how many of your answers the provider meets;
2. how few it misses;
3. whether it publishes a price before intake at all, ahead of one that does not;
4. the lowest monthly price that includes the medication;
5. its Trustpilot rating, and then its name.

Commission is not one of those inputs. Whether a provider pays us changes which button a result shows and nothing about where it sits; a test in the codebase asserts exactly that, so adding it later would have to be deliberate and would fail the build.

A result says what it misses, and says so on its face. Where we hold no confirmed, dated fact — whether a provider is licensed in your state, whether insurance can pay for the medication — the quiz marks that answer not confirmed rather than guessing in either direction, and a provider is only removed for a licensing or plan exclusion we have read on its own page. If nothing meets every answer, the quiz says so and shows the closest, rather than quietly relaxing what you asked for.

What we exclude

• Efficacy and savings claims made by providers. If we publish a claim we own it, so we write from FDA labels and our own verified prices instead.
• Any framing of a compounded product as equivalent to an approved brand. It is not, and that specific wording has drawn FDA warning letters.
• Testimonials as typical results, and before-and-after imagery.
• Countdown timers, invented scarcity, fabricated reviews, and “N people viewing” widgets.
• Clinical guidance without a recorded medical review. We do not yet have a named reviewer, so today that means no clinical guidance at all; the medical disclaimer says where that stands.

The commercial side of this is set out separately, in full, at how we make money. Our sourcing rules and what we refuse to publish are at editorial policy, and errors are handled per our corrections policy.