Editorial standards
Our standards for research, sourcing, fact-checking, corrections and the separation of editorial from commercial.
Research and fact-checking
Every provider fact is collected from primary sources, captured with a date, and verified by a second person before publication. Prices, credentials, pharmacies and availability claims are each checked.
Editorial vs commercial
Advertising and affiliate relationships never influence rankings, scores or inclusion. Sponsored content, if any, is labeled and separated from editorial and never mixed into rankings.
Use of AI
AI tools may assist drafting and formatting. Every published page is reviewed by a named human editor, and clinical content by a named clinical reviewer. AI is not the accountable author of any claim.
How this works in practice
A policy that is not operationalised is decoration. Here is what ours actually changes about the pages you read.
Every price carries a status. Verified means we hold a dated capture of the provider's own page. Reported — pending verification means a provider or third party reports it and we have not captured it ourselves. Evaluation in progress means we are not asserting it. We do not upgrade a price to Verified because a comparison site published it — sites in this category contradict each other routinely, and a number repeated by three affiliate blogs is still one unverified number.
Every medical claim traces to a primary source. FDA labels and guidance for regulatory status; PubMed-indexed randomised trials for efficacy; ClinicalTrials.gov for trial design. Reddit and patient forums are never used as evidence of price, safety, efficacy or legitimacy — they may be described as anecdotal sentiment, labelled as such. Animal research is never presented as proof of a human clinical effect.
Every ranking shows its arithmetic. Where a provider we have a commercial relationship with ranks well, the calculation that produced that result is printed on the page. If the arithmetic is wrong, you can see that it is wrong, and tell us.
Commercial relationships and what they do not buy
The publisher and certain principals have financial relationships with some of the telehealth providers listed on this site, and we may earn a commission when readers use certain links. That is how this publication is funded, and we state it in the footer of every page rather than burying it.
What compensation does not do: it does not change a score, a rank, an inclusion decision, or a negative finding. Providers cannot pay for placement, cannot suppress an accurate criticism, and cannot review their own page before publication. Where a commercially-related provider loses a category, we say so — a comparison in which one provider wins everything is an advertisement, and the fastest way to tell the difference is to look for the losses.
Corrections
We publish prices in a market that changes them frequently, and we will get things wrong. When we do, we correct the page, date the correction, and say what changed — we do not quietly edit a number and pretend it was always right. Both readers and providers can submit corrections with evidence, through the same process and to the same standard.
Our own record so far includes removing a set of provider prices we had sourced from a third-party comparison site and could not substantiate, and correcting brand-pricing figures that had gone stale after a manufacturer price cut. Both corrections made the site less flattering to conclusions we had already published. That is the point.
Jastreboff AM et al., N Engl J Med 2022 (NCT04184622), n=2,539. Dose-response is real: the effect rises with dose. These are FDA-APPROVED SUBCUTANEOUS INJECTION doses — they do not transfer to compounded, microdose or ODT products. Trial means are not individual promises.
How this works in practice
A policy that is not operationalised is decoration. Here is what ours actually changes about the pages you read.
Every price carries a status. We do not upgrade a price to Verified because another comparison site published it. Sites in this category contradict each other routinely — the dataset behind this site corrected a stored TrimRx figure of $259 that matched no current tier, and an Eden brand-Zepbound figure of $299 that was actually LillyDirect’s price rather than Eden’s real $1,399. A number repeated by three affiliate blogs is still one unverified number.
| Label | Means | Example on this site |
|---|---|---|
| Verified | We hold a dated capture, or the fact comes from a primary source (FDA, the manufacturer, CMS). | LillyDirect's $299 — taken from Eli Lilly's own pricing page. |
| Reported — pending verification | A provider or a third party reports it. We have not captured it ourselves. | Competitor pricing; every pharmacy relationship on this site. |
| Evaluation in progress | Verification pending. We are not asserting the fact at all. | Cancellation terms we could not obtain in writing. |
Every medical claim traces to a primary source. FDA labels and orders for regulatory status; PubMed-indexed randomised trials for efficacy; ClinicalTrials.gov for trial design. Reddit and patient forums are never used as evidence of price, safety, efficacy or legitimacy. Animal research is never presented as proof of a human clinical effect. An affiliate comparison site is never primary evidence for anything.
Commercial relationships, and what they do not buy
Relationships the publisher has confirmed to date: NexLife (financial interest). Where a provider is not named here, that is because the publisher has not confirmed a relationship — it is not a statement that we have verified its absence. We would rather show you that gap than imply an independence we have not checked.
Compensation does not increase the price you pay, and does not permit any provider to purchase a verification status, alter a documented fact, remove a material limitation, change a ranking, or bypass our published editorial and medical-review standards.
What compensation does not do: it does not change a score, a rank, an inclusion decision, or a negative finding. Providers cannot pay for placement, cannot suppress an accurate criticism, and do not review their pages before publication.
Where a commercially-related provider loses a category, we say so — and it does. Found beats NexLife on 12-month-prepaid full-dose tirzepatide at $169. Brand Foundayo, an FDA-approved oral pill, beats both at $149. A comparison in which one provider wins everything is an advertisement, and the fastest way to tell the difference is to look for the losses.
Corrections, and our own record
We publish prices in a market that changes them constantly, and we will get things wrong. When we do, we correct the page, date the correction, and say what changed — we do not quietly edit a number and pretend it was always right. Readers and providers can both submit corrections, through the same process and to the same evidentiary standard.
Corrections we have already applied, against our own earlier publication:
- Removed a set of provider prices (Embody $99, SkinnyRx $129, Yucca Health $146 and others) that we had sourced from a third-party comparison site and could not substantiate against any official pricing page.
- Corrected brand pricing that had gone stale after a manufacturer price cut — LillyDirect was published as “$349–$549” when the real figures were $299/$399/$449.
- Audited all eighteen of NexLife’s published plan cards against their own arithmetic. Sixteen reconcile. Two do not, and we publish the arithmetic rather than the marketing figure — in both cases making a provider we have a financial interest in look slightly worse than its own advertising.
Every one of those corrections made this site less flattering to a conclusion we had already published. That is the point of having a corrections policy at all.