Corrections

Logged 8 August 2026 — Join Fridays tirzepatide, $249 to $359

We published $249 a month for Join Fridays' compounded tirzepatide. That figure is Fridays' compounded semaglutide price. It reached our tirzepatide column through a secondary index rather than the provider's own page. Fridays' help centre lists a one-month tirzepatide plan at $359 billed monthly, and a review citing joinfridays.com/pricing on 20 July 2026 records semaglutide at $249 against tirzepatide at $359 month-to-month.

Corrected to $359 month-to-month. Reported annual-plan equivalents range from about $198 to $240 a month depending on source, so the term and the molecule both need confirming at checkout.

This correction moved a competitor down and widened the lead of the programme ranked first on this site. We are stating that plainly because a correction that flatters our own top listing deserves more scrutiny than one that does not, and because it is exactly the error class we criticise elsewhere: a semaglutide price sitting in a tirzepatide column. We made it ourselves.

Logged 8 August 2026 — Henry Meds tirzepatide, $449 to $349 and a formulation error

We published $449 a month month-to-month with a $349 twelve-month prepaid rate and dose-tier upcharges, sourced from third-party reviews. That was wrong on price and, more seriously, on formulation.

Henry Meds dispenses tirzepatide as an oral dissolving tablet, sold as a three-month supply at $1,047 (about $349 a month) or $891 paid in full (about $297 a month). A review citing Henry's own product pages on 20 July 2026 states no injectable tirzepatide was offered as of that date, and the provider's own product URL ends in /tirzepatide-tablets.

Because this is an oral product, it is not directly comparable to programmes ranked on a weekly 2.5–15 mg injectable ladder, and its entry now says so. Henry's advertised ‘starting at $179’ is a floor across its whole GLP-1 range, not a tirzepatide price.

Logged 8 August 2026 — Found, $398 to $289, and a membership that was not a membership

We published $299 a month plus a $99 monthly membership for Found, giving $398 all-in. Both figures were wrong. Two independent sources checked today record Found's cash-pay compounded plan at $289 a month with medication included and no separate membership, or $169 a month on a twelve-month plan paid up front.

The $99 we carried as a platform fee is Found's insurance-track prepaid annual rate, quoted alongside a $199 monthly option plus a copay. It was never a fee on the cash plan. We had taken a figure from one pricing track and applied it as a surcharge on another.

Corrected to $289 month-to-month. This moved Found down the ranking by $109 a month, which narrows the gap to the programme ranked first rather than widening it.

Logged 8 August 2026 — LifeMD reclassified from compounded to brand

We listed LifeMD as a hybrid dispensing compounded tirzepatide at $399 a month. Sources checked on 8 August 2026 record it as brand-only following the industry-wide compounded wind-down: it dispenses Zepbound through manufacturer-direct channels rather than a compounded preparation.

Reclassified as a brand route at about $448 a month cash-pay all-in, including the $149 monthly membership that sits on top of medication. Because it dispenses an FDA-approved product rather than a pharmacy preparation, it is no longer ranked against the compounded programmes; comparing the two on price alone would be comparing different regulatory objects.

This is the second formulation error we have caught in our own data this week, after Henry Meds. Both came from third-party sources describing a programme's category rather than its current offering. We have tightened the rule: a programme's type is now treated as a claim requiring the same verification as its price.

Logged 8 August 2026 — counting discipline: 16 rankable, 17 with any price

An internal audit found the site quoting two different totals for the same thing. Some pages said we price 17 programmes; the ranked lists beside them showed 16. Both numbers were true of different sets, which is exactly the ambiguity we criticise elsewhere.

The cause: one tracked programme publishes a 2.5 mg starter-dose price and nothing above it, so it cannot be placed on a ranking computed at a 10 mg maintenance dose. Every prose count now uses the rankable set of 16. The seventeenth is still tracked and still listed; it is simply not counted in a statistic about maintenance-dose pricing, because a starter-dose figure does not belong in one.

Logged 8 August 2026 — molecule comparisons were built on mismatched doses

The same audit found the cross-molecule pages comparing a scaled programme's starter-dose tirzepatide figure against its semaglutide monthly rate, and omitting mandatory membership from both sides. At one programme this produced a negative difference and implied tirzepatide was the cheaper molecule there, which is false.

All cross-molecule comparisons now place both molecules on the same basis: tirzepatide at the 10 mg maintenance dose, semaglutide at its published monthly rate, and any mandatory membership added to each side. This was our own version of the error this site exists to document.

The figures we currently cannot stand behind

Seven pricing or classification errors were found in our own data during the audits of 8 August 2026. Six were in records sourced from third parties rather than read at the provider. That is a base rate worth publishing rather than burying: third-party figures on this site have proven wrong more often than right.

Two records remain flagged third-party and unconfirmed at source: Remedy Meds and Amble Health. We could not locate a current figure on either programme's own pricing page. Given the base rate above, treat both as provisional and confirm at checkout. They are labelled as such on every page they appear on and in the published dataset, and neither is presented as equivalent to a source-verified figure.

We would rather publish a smaller number of defensible figures than a longer list we cannot defend. If you operate either programme and our figure is wrong, send a rate card through contact and it will be corrected with a dated entry here.

What gets logged

A wrong price, a misstated term, an incorrect regulatory statement, or a ranking moved by bad data. Each is logged with the date it was fixed and what it was before. Programme pages carry their own correction notes where a figure has been replaced.

How to report one

Send the page URL and, if you have one, a source, through contact. If our figure and a programme's own page differ, ours is wrong and we want to know.

How this page fits the rest of the site

Everything here rests on one dataset: all-in monthly cost at six dose tiers for every tracked programme, with a capture date and an evidence status on each record. Rankings sort that dataset on a stated criterion; comparisons read the same rows; the calculators run against the same file. Nothing on this site is assembled by hand, which is why a policy page can describe a rule rather than an intention.

What we publish when we are not sure

The absence. A programme that does not publish a price gets a page saying so and listing what to ask before handing over a medical history. A figure taken from a third-party round-up is labelled as unconfirmed rather than presented alongside verified prices as though the two were equivalent. Where two sources disagree we show both.

That produces a shorter table than competitors publish. It also produces one that survives being checked, which is the only durable advantage a comparison site has.

The disclosures that matter more than any policy

Compounded preparations are not FDA-approved and are not reviewed by FDA for safety, effectiveness or quality before marketing. Tirzepatide is a prescription medicine and nothing here is medical advice. No programme pays for placement or position, and rankings are computed from the published dataset rather than assigned.

Tell us when we are wrong

Prices move, terms change and programmes leave the market. If a figure here differs from a programme's own page, ours is wrong. Send the URL through contact and the change is logged in corrections with the date it was made.

The standard this site holds itself to

Publish what can be verified, label what cannot, and record what changed. Those three rules generate everything else: why 11 of 32 programmes carry a verified tag and the rest do not, why some rows are blank, and why corrections appear on the page where the error was rather than in a log nobody reads.

They also explain what is missing. There are no ratings out of ten, no star scores and no aggregate quality judgements, because we cannot measure service quality from outside and inventing a number for it would corrupt the figures that are real.

Why the dataset is published rather than described

Every table on this site is generated from one file: 32 programmes with all-in cost at six dose tiers, first-year totals, fee structure, commitment terms, care model, pharmacy disclosure, evidence status and source, each with a capture date.

That file is downloadable. Sort it by first-year cost and it should reproduce our cheapest ranking exactly. If it does not, that is a bug or a lie, and you can find it without our help. A comparison site that will not publish its own data is asking to be trusted rather than checked.

The commercial conflict, named

Comparison sites in health are funded by the companies they rank. That creates an obvious incentive to rank the highest-paying option first and describe the arrangement vaguely, and it is the reason readers are right to be sceptical of every site in this category.

The defences available are boring and checkable: compute rankings from a published dataset on a stated sort key, publish the dataset, log corrections publicly, and record negative facts about highly ranked programmes. None of that proves good faith. It makes bad faith detectable, which is the most any publisher can honestly offer.

What good looks like in this market

A programme that publishes its price at every dose tier, names the pharmacy that compounds the medicine, states its cancellation terms before you pay, and can decline to prescribe. Those four together are rarer than they should be, and they cost a programme nothing except the ability to advertise a number that is not the number.

The cheapest tracked route currently runs $215 a month all-in at a 10 mg maintenance dose, about $2,580 for a first year. That figure is what a well-informed buyer should be measuring every other offer against.

Where this sits against the dataset

The figures behind this page come from one file: 32 programmes, all-in cost at six dose tiers, terms, care model, pharmacy disclosure, evidence status and source, each with a capture date. All-in cost at a maintenance dose runs $215 to $597 across it.

Change the file and every table, ranking and calculator changes with it. There is no separate editorial layer to adjust, which is the structural reason a policy page here can describe a rule rather than an intention.

What it would take to prove us wrong

Download the dataset, sort it on the criterion named in any ranking title, and check whether our published order reproduces. Then open any provider link and compare our figure to theirs. Both checks take minutes and neither requires trusting us.

If they disagree, that is a bug or a lie and we would rather hear about it than have it found later by someone with less reason to be generous.

The short version of this guide

Price the dose you expect to hold, not the one in the advertisement. Add every recurring fee. Verify the pharmacy. Everything else on this page is detail underneath those three.

Done properly the answer is usually one of a handful of programmes: the cheapest verified route runs $215 a month all-in, about $2,580 across a first year including titration.

The next step that actually moves things

Send two or three programmes the same five questions: total at 10 mg including every fee, which pharmacy, is the prescriber licensed in my state, what notice to cancel and what is refundable, and which form of the active ingredient is used.

Whoever answers all five in writing has told you more than any comparison table can, this one included. Whoever does not has also told you something.

One thing worth doing annually

Re-price the market at your actual maintenance dose. No programme notifies existing patients when a competitor drops below it, and tirzepatide pricing moved repeatedly through 2025 and 2026 — manufacturer cuts, an oral option, a higher-dose product, and several platforms leaving compounded entirely.

An hour once a year is a poor use of time for most purchases and an excellent one for a medication you may take for years.

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 the same molecule sells across a fifteenfold range

The active ingredient is identical whether it arrives as Zepbound at list price or as a compounded preparation at $215 a month. What differs is everything around it: pre-market review, manufacturing under a federal quality system, supply-chain traceability, cold-chain validation, pharmacovigilance and the commercial cost of bringing a drug to market at all.

That is the trade a compounded route asks you to make, and it is a real one in both directions. The approved product carries assurances the compounded one does not. The compounded one is accessible to people for whom the approved product is not, which is not a trivial benefit when the alternative is no treatment.

What is not defensible is presenting the two as equivalent. A compounded preparation is not a cheaper version of Zepbound; it is a different regulatory object containing the same molecule.

The pharmacology behind the fees

Tirzepatide is dosed weekly, ships refrigerated and must not freeze. Those three facts explain most of the fee structures in this market. Weekly dosing means monthly fulfilment cycles and recurring shipping. Refrigeration means insulated packaging, coolant and expedited carriage. Not freezing means the winter and summer failure modes are different and both cost money to mitigate.

A programme charging nothing for shipping has absorbed that cost into the medication price rather than eliminated it. A programme itemising it has not necessarily made you worse off. The only comparison that survives either structure is the all-in monthly figure, which is why it is the only figure this site ranks on.

What stopping does, and why it belongs in a cost calculation

The withdrawal evidence for this drug class is consistent: substantial weight regain follows discontinuation, because the drug suppresses appetite while it is being taken rather than resetting a set point. That is a pharmacological property, not a failure of willpower.

Read as a budgeting question, it means the relevant number is not what a first year costs but what a sustainable year costs, repeated. A programme you can afford for three years at a maintenance dose is a better clinical bet than one you can afford for eight months, even if the second is cheaper on the month you enrol.

Why the same molecule sells across a fifteenfold range

The active ingredient is identical whether it arrives as Zepbound at list price or as a compounded preparation at $215 a month. What differs is everything around it: pre-market review, manufacturing under a federal quality system, supply-chain traceability, cold-chain validation, pharmacovigilance and the commercial cost of bringing a drug to market at all.

That is the trade a compounded route asks you to make, and it is a real one in both directions. The approved product carries assurances the compounded one does not. The compounded one is accessible to people for whom the approved product is not, which is not a trivial benefit when the alternative is no treatment.

What is not defensible is presenting the two as equivalent. A compounded preparation is not a cheaper version of Zepbound; it is a different regulatory object containing the same molecule.

The pharmacology behind the fees

Tirzepatide is dosed weekly, ships refrigerated and must not freeze. Those three facts explain most of the fee structures in this market. Weekly dosing means monthly fulfilment cycles and recurring shipping. Refrigeration means insulated packaging, coolant and expedited carriage. Not freezing means the winter and summer failure modes are different and both cost money to mitigate.

A programme charging nothing for shipping has absorbed that cost into the medication price rather than eliminated it. A programme itemising it has not necessarily made you worse off. The only comparison that survives either structure is the all-in monthly figure, which is why it is the only figure this site ranks on.

What stopping does, and why it belongs in a cost calculation

The withdrawal evidence for this drug class is consistent: substantial weight regain follows discontinuation, because the drug suppresses appetite while it is being taken rather than resetting a set point. That is a pharmacological property, not a failure of willpower.

Read as a budgeting question, it means the relevant number is not what a first year costs but what a sustainable year costs, repeated. A programme you can afford for three years at a maintenance dose is a better clinical bet than one you can afford for eight months, even if the second is cheaper on the month you enrol.