Certificate of Analysis
Identity and purity for a specific lot.
Identity and purity for a specific lot.
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
Why this is the check that matters
A compounded preparation is not FDA-approved and is not reviewed by FDA for safety, effectiveness or quality before marketing. Its assurance comes from the pharmacy, the state board that licenses it and, at good operations, batch sterility and potency testing. That puts more of the verification burden on the patient, which is the honest reason the compounded price is lower.
What you can check yourself, free
State boards of pharmacy publish licensee lookups. FDA publishes outsourcing-facility registrations and its warning letters, searchable by company name. Between them you can establish in minutes whether a named pharmacy exists, holds a current licence and has been the subject of public enforcement. The check is only impossible when the programme refuses to name it — which is itself the answer.
What good disclosure looks like
A name and a state licence number. Not a category like ‘a licensed 503A partner’, and not a deflection about proprietary partnerships. You do not need to know pharmacy law to notice which of the three you received.
Where this sits against price
Disclosure and price are close to independent in this market. Some of the cheapest programmes publish the most and some of the dearest publish almost nothing. Verify separately from comparing cost, and let a failure on verification disqualify a programme regardless of the number.
What you can establish yourself, free, in about ten minutes
State boards of pharmacy publish licensee lookups. FDA publishes outsourcing-facility registrations and its warning letters, searchable by company name. Accreditation bodies publish directories. Between them you can establish whether a named pharmacy exists, holds a current licence, is registered where relevant and has been the subject of public enforcement.
The check is only impossible when the programme refuses to name the pharmacy — which is itself the answer, and the reason pharmacy disclosure carries the weight it does in our scoring.
What accreditation does and does not prove
Accreditation tests processes at a point in time. It does not certify any particular batch, and it is not a substitute for the state licence, which is the legal permission to operate. A commerce credential such as a payment-processing certification is weaker still: it establishes that a seller met a merchant standard, not that a preparation was made correctly.
Treat accreditation as a positive signal rather than a guarantee, and treat its absence as a question rather than a verdict.
The questions that actually separate operations
Is each batch tested for sterility and potency, and will you release the certificate of analysis for the lot I received? What is the beyond-use date on my vial and how was it determined? What concentration is my vial, and does it change between refills? Who do I contact if a shipment arrives warm, and who pays for the replacement?
Those four are answerable by any operation that is doing the work, and unanswerable by one that is not.
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.
Why this check exists at all
An FDA-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 that licenses 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 the patient. This page is one part of that work.
What a programme's answer tells you
Fewer than a fifth of the 20 priced programmes name a dispensing pharmacy before purchase. The ones that do are not systematically more expensive, which undercuts the usual explanation that disclosure costs money.
A name and a licence number is the good answer. A category is incomplete but honest about what it withholds. A deflection about proprietary partnerships is itself the answer.
Where this sits against price
Disclosure and price are close to independent in this market. Some of the cheapest programmes publish the most and some of the dearest publish almost nothing.
Verify separately from comparing cost, and let a failure here disqualify a programme regardless of the number attached to it. A saving of a few hundred dollars a year does not compensate for not knowing who made what you are injecting weekly.
Reading this against the rest of the decision
This sits inside a decision with three parts: what you pay at the dose you hold, who makes what you are injecting, and what happens if you stop. Most published guidance covers the first and treats the other two as footnotes.
They are not footnotes. A price advantage of a few hundred dollars a year is erased by one interrupted month, and an interruption is a clinical event rather than an inconvenience — semaglutide takes sixteen weeks to re-titrate from the starter dose.
Which is why this section exists separately from the pricing pages, and why the verification steps on it are worth completing even when the programme you are considering is the cheapest on the site.
What to do with this before you enrol
Turn it into two or three questions you can send in an email. Anything here that cannot be converted into a question a programme could answer in writing is context rather than a check, and context does not protect you.
The programmes that answer promptly and specifically are, in our reading of the public record, rarely the ones patients later write about. That is a weak signal rather than evidence, but it costs nothing to collect and it arrives before your money does.
If a programme declines to answer, that is an answer. The market currently offers 20 priced alternatives, the cheapest verified at $145 a month all-in at a maintenance dose.
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.
Where certificate of analysis 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.
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.