Price Change History
An append-only ledger of what moved.
An append-only ledger of what moved.
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
An append-only ledger of what moved. 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 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.
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.
Putting price change history in proportion
It is one input into a decision with three parts: what you pay at the dose you hold, who makes what you inject, and what happens if you stop. Weighting one to the exclusion of the others is how people end up on a cheap programme they abandon in month nine.
The frame: 20 programmes publish a capturable price, spanning $145 to $324 a month all-in at a 2.4 mg maintenance dose. 4 charge a mandatory recurring fee. 6 name the dispensing pharmacy before purchase.
What good looks like
A figure at a named dose, the pharmacy named, cancellation terms published before payment, and a plain statement that a compounded preparation is not FDA-approved. Four things, all cheap to publish, and a minority does all four.
The cheapest verified route sits at $145 a month, which establishes that disclosure and low price are not in tension.
What to ask before you pay
Five questions, all answerable in a short email, all before a medical history changes hands: the total at a maintenance dose including every fee; which pharmacy fills it; whether the prescriber is licensed in your state; the notice period to cancel and what is refundable; and which form of the active ingredient the pharmacy compounds from.
None requires clinical training to evaluate. The speed and specificity of the reply tells you how the operation is run, and it arrives before your money does.
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.