Cancellation Policies Dataset
Terms, notice periods and refundability.
Terms, notice periods and refundability.
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.
Where every tracked programme sits at 2.4 mg
What is in this dataset
Terms, notice periods and refundability. Every record carries the date it was captured and an evidence status saying whether we read the figure at the provider or took it from a third party.
How to use it
Download the file, sort it yourself, and check that our published rankings reproduce. If they do not, that is a bug or a lie and either way you can find it without our help.
What it does not contain
Service quality, shipping reliability or clinical depth. We hold no measurements of those we would defend, so they are absent rather than estimated.
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.
What is in the file
32 programme records. Each carries name, type, pricing model, medication cost, any recurring fee, all-in cost at five dose tiers, a first-year total, cost per milligram, prepaid rate and term, published state count, care-model attributes, evidence status, source text, a resolvable source URL, a Wayback lookup and the capture date.
20 of them carry a price. The remainder carry an explanation of why not, which is a field rather than a silent null.
How to work with it
The JSON is the canonical form and carries claim-level citations; the CSV is flattened for spreadsheets and drops the nested care-model and claims objects. Both are regenerated on every build, so a figure in the file and a figure on a page cannot drift apart.
Sort by first_year to reproduce our cheapest ranking. Filter evidence_status to source-verified for the subset we would defend. Group by pricing_model to see the flat-versus-scaled split.
What it deliberately omits
Ratings, scores out of ten, review counts and sentiment. None of those is measurable from public material in a way we would defend, and publishing them would make the file look more authoritative than it is.
It also omits estimated prices. A programme that does not publish appears with nulls and a reason, because a null is checkable and an estimate is not.
Licence and citation
Reuse permitted with attribution to this site, carrying the capture date shown on the figure. A price without its date is not a fact, and republishing one without it is how the errors we spend our time correcting get created in the first place.
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.
Method
Computed over one file covering 32 programmes on a single price basis: all-in monthly cost, medication plus any recurring fee, at a named dose tier. No estimates, no imputed values, and no programme excluded for reasons other than the criterion stated.
Where a finding depends on a figure we could not verify at source, it is flagged rather than rounded away.
Findings
All-in cost at a 2.4 mg maintenance dose spans $145 to $324 — a 2.2-times spread for the identical molecule from the same category of licensed pharmacy. 19 of 20 programmes hold one price at every dose; the rest reprice as you climb. 4 charge a mandatory recurring fee on top of medication.
Fewer than a fifth identify the dispensing pharmacy before purchase, which is the single disclosure that would let a patient verify anything independently.
Limitations
Everything here comes from published material we could access. We did not enrol, did not mystery-shop, and did not contact programmes for comment before publication. Service quality, shipping reliability and clinical depth are absent because they are not measurable from outside.
A programme that discloses something we could not find should tell us, and the record will be corrected with the date.
Reuse
Cite freely with attribution and the capture date. Journalists and analysts should take the underlying file rather than transcribing from a table, because the file carries the evidence status that a table necessarily compresses.
Where cancellation policies dataset 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 is in the file
32 programme records. Each carries name, type, pricing model, medication cost, any recurring fee, all-in cost at five dose tiers, a first-year total, cost per milligram, prepaid rate and term, published state count, care-model attributes, evidence status, source text, a resolvable source URL, a Wayback lookup and the capture date.
20 of them carry a price. The remainder carry an explanation of why not, which is a field rather than a silent null.
How to work with it
The JSON is the canonical form and carries claim-level citations; the CSV is flattened for spreadsheets and drops the nested care-model and claims objects. Both are regenerated on every build, so a figure in the file and a figure on a page cannot drift apart.
Sort by first_year to reproduce our cheapest ranking. Filter evidence_status to source-verified for the subset we would defend. Group by pricing_model to see the flat-versus-scaled split.
What it deliberately omits
Ratings, scores out of ten, review counts and sentiment. None of those is measurable from public material in a way we would defend, and publishing them would make the file look more authoritative than it is.
It also omits estimated prices. A programme that does not publish appears with nulls and a reason, because a null is checkable and an estimate is not.
Licence and citation
Reuse permitted with attribution to this site, carrying the capture date shown on the figure. A price without its date is not a fact, and republishing one without it is how the errors we spend our time correcting get created in the first place.
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.