Ozempic vs Wegovy vs Compounded

What the data shows

Across the 20 programmes we price, all-in cost at a 2.4 mg maintenance dose runs from $145 to $324 for the identical molecule. The spread is overhead, clinical wrap, pharmacy sourcing and margin rather than the medicine.

What to do with it

Price the dose you expect to hold, including every recurring fee, and check the figure against the provider's own page before acting on it. Every programme page here links that page directly.

What we could not establish

Shipping reliability, response times and clinical quality. None is measurable from outside, so none appears in our tables rather than being estimated.

What this changes about the programme you pick

Very little on its own, which is the honest answer. Almost every decision in this market comes back to three questions: what will I pay at the dose I actually hold, who compounds it, and what happens if I stop. A page that does not move one of those three is decoration.

Where this one moves the needle is on the first. Run the figure at your expected maintenance dose rather than the advertised one, and the ranking you were shown elsewhere frequently inverts.

How to check the numbers above

Every figure carries a capture date and an evidence status. Prices marked verified were read on the provider's own page; the rest came from named third-party sources and are treated as indicative. Open the dataset, re-sort it, and see whether our published order reproduces.

If it does not, that is a bug or a lie and you can find it without our help. If our figure and a provider's own page disagree, ours is wrong and we want to know.

What is deliberately absent

Shipping reliability, response times, and whether the clinical oversight is any good. We hold no measurements of those we would defend, so they appear nowhere in our tables rather than being estimated into a score.

That is why there is no rating out of ten on this site. A single number would compress price, disclosure, service and clinical depth into one figure and hide the weighting. We publish the inputs instead so you can weight them yourself.

What the spread tells you

All-in cost at a 2.4 mg maintenance dose runs from $145 to $324 across the 20 programmes we price. That is the identical molecule from the same category of licensed pharmacy, so the difference is overhead, clinical wrap, sourcing and margin rather than the medicine.

A 2.2-times spread on an identical product is unusual outside markets where buyers cannot easily compare, which is exactly the condition this site exists to remove.

Price the dose you will actually hold

The single most valuable correction anyone reading this can make. Advertised figures describe the 0.20.5 mg starter dose, which occupies about four weeks of a twelve-month course. Ten of your first twelve months are spent at or near a maintenance dose.

On a dose-scaled programme those are different numbers. On a flat programme they are not, which is the entire argument for flat pricing and the reason it is worth paying a little more at initiation for it.

The verification step most people skip

Ask which pharmacy fills the prescription, by name, then search your state board's licensee register for it. It is free, takes about two minutes, and fewer than a fifth of priced programmes publish enough to let you do it.

A programme that names a pharmacy has given you something checkable. One that describes a category has told you what it is not telling you. One that deflects has answered the question.

Two questions that settle most of it

What will I pay in total in month six at 2.4 mg, including every fee? A flat, all-inclusive programme answers in one sentence. A split-pricing programme needs three, because the answer depends on whether your insurance pays for the medication. A programme that cannot answer at all has told you something.

Which pharmacy fills it, and is the prescriber licensed in my state? Both are checkable against public registers, both are free, and neither requires you to trust us or the programme.

What a good answer looks like in writing

A figure with a dose attached. A named pharmacy with a state licence number. A cancellation notice period. A statement that the preparation is compounded and not FDA-approved. And a renewal rate that matches the rate you were quoted.

Getting those five in an email before you pay costs nothing and resolves almost every dispute that appears in complaint records for this category. The programmes that answer promptly are, in our reading of the public record, rarely the ones patients later write about.

How current this is

Prices captured 2026-08-05. Every figure on this page carries that date and an evidence status saying whether we read it at the provider or took it from a third party. Pricing in this market has moved repeatedly during 2026, and several large programmes stopped selling compounded semaglutide entirely.

Treat any comparison older than a month — including this one — as needing a re-check before you act on it. The dataset is republished on every build.

How much ozempic vs wegovy vs compounded 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.

Reading this alongside the rest of the site

Pricing pages isolate one component. Provider reviews carry the whole record for one programme. Comparisons run two side by side at every dose. The rankings sort the same dataset on different questions. None is the whole picture and none is meant to be.

If you read one other page, make it how to verify a pharmacy. Price is the easiest thing to compare and rarely the thing that goes wrong.

What we would need to change our mind

A programme publishing a figure at a dose tier currently blank. A named dispensing pharmacy with a checkable licence. A pricing model changing in either direction. A regulatory action. Or a correction from a reader with a source we can open.

All five are logged with the date they landed, on the change log and in the dataset. Prices here were captured 2026-08-05.

What this site will not do

Publish an estimated price for a programme that does not publish one. Rank a programme higher because it pays. Present a compounded preparation as equivalent to an approved product. Or carry a figure without the date it was captured.

Those four rules cost us pages, rankings and revenue, and they are the only reason a reader has to prefer this to a round-up assembled in an afternoon. A price without its date is not a fact, and a comparison built from undated prices is not a comparison.

Who this site is not for

Anyone with coverage under a documented indication, who should use it rather than read a cash comparison. Anyone looking for a source without a prescription, which this site will not help with. And anyone wanting a single confident recommendation, because the honest answer depends on your dose, your coverage and your tolerance for commitment.

If you want the short version anyway: price the dose you will hold, add every fee, verify the pharmacy, and avoid long prepaid terms until you have tolerated a maintenance dose for a cycle.

Why this runs in your browser

No account, no email gate, nothing transmitted. Given that the subject is a prescription medicine and the inputs describe your dose and budget, that seemed the only defensible default.

It also means the result is not stored, so bookmark or screenshot anything you want to keep. The underlying dataset is downloadable if you would rather work in a spreadsheet.

What this calculator assumes

Four weeks at each step from 0.25 mg through 1.7 mg, then your chosen maintenance dose for the remainder. No repeated steps, no promotional rate carried past month one, and no prepaid discount unless the tool says otherwise.

A large share of patients hold at a step longer than four weeks. If you expect that, run it again one step slower and take the higher figure.

What it cannot tell you

Whether a programme ships on time, answers messages, or is clinically appropriate for you. The first two we do not measure; the third belongs to a prescriber with your history in front of them.

Use the output to narrow a shortlist, then read the individual reviews and run the verification checks before enrolling. The cheapest verified route currently sits at $145 a month all-in at a 2.4 mg maintenance dose.

The three numbers worth carrying away

The cheapest verified all-in cost at a maintenance dose: $145 a month, $1,740 for a first year. The share of priced programmes charging a mandatory recurring fee on top of medication: 4 of 20. And the share naming a dispensing pharmacy before purchase: fewer than a fifth.

Those three settle more purchasing decisions than any narrative comparison, and all three are reproducible from the file.

What most published comparisons get wrong about this

They compare advertised figures, which are not comparable to one another. One programme quotes medication only, another bundles a mandatory membership, a third quotes a promotional first month that reverts, a fourth reprices you as the dose climbs, and a fifth charges a programme fee with medication billed separately.

Ranking those five on their headline numbers produces an order that is wrong in a predictable direction: the programmes with the most aggressive fee structures look cheapest.