First-month promotional rates published as ongoing prices

Many programmes advertise a discounted first month that reverts to a materially higher ongoing rate, and round-ups repeatedly publish the promotional figure as the standing price.

The effect compounds with dose-scaling: a promotional entry price at a programme that also reprices with dose can understate a twelve-month total by more than a thousand dollars.

Ask whether the quoted rate holds at renewal, and get it in writing.

What this changes for what you pay

Most developments in this category move one of three things: the price of the branded product, which programmes are operating, or what may lawfully be compounded. Very few change the prescription requirement, the pharmacy licensing framework or the clinical review behind a prescription.

The cheapest verified compounded route we track currently sits at $215 a month all-in at a 10 mg maintenance dose, about $2,580 for a first year. Where a development moves that figure, our tables move with it on the next build.

How to verify this yourself

Regulatory claims should be checked against the agency rather than against coverage of the agency. FDA publishes warning letters searchable by company name, a shortage database, and its compounding pages. Trial claims should be checked against the registry entry rather than a press release.

Every source behind this item is linked below, and where a story is still moving we say so rather than implying it is settled.

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.

The question worth asking before the price question

Whether you have a covered indication. Tirzepatide is approved for chronic weight management and, as Mounjaro, for type 2 diabetes; obstructive sleep apnoea in adults with obesity is an additional route. A covered prescription under a documented indication beats every cash route on this site, frequently by an order of magnitude.

Most people do this backwards: compare cash prices, enrol, then discover an indication they already qualified for. Establishing coverage first costs a phone call and can save four figures a year, which is more than any comparison table on this site will save you.

Reading a price like a clinician would

A clinician deciding whether a programme is workable asks three questions a price comparison usually skips. Can this patient stay on it long enough to reach a maintenance dose? Is the supply reliable enough that titration will not be interrupted? And is the prescriber reachable when the fourth-week nausea arrives?

Each maps to something checkable before enrolling. Long prepaid terms answer the first badly if money is tight. A single owned dispensing facility answers the second worse than several named partner pharmacies, because a programme with one supply route cannot reroute your prescription. And the care model answers the third: asynchronous messaging is adequate for most titration questions and inadequate for a few.

None of that appears in an advertised price, and all of it decides whether the price you chose is the price you end up paying.

What the GIP arm may be doing

GIP receptor agonism is the pharmacological difference between tirzepatide and the GLP-1-only agents, and its contribution is still being characterised. Proposed mechanisms include effects on adipose tissue insulin sensitivity, on central appetite pathways distinct from the GLP-1 route, and on the tolerability of GLP-1 agonism itself, which would allow effective exposure at doses that would otherwise be poorly tolerated.

This is an area of active research rather than settled science, and anyone stating the mechanism confidently is ahead of the literature. What is established is the outcome difference in the head-to-head trial; the explanation for it is not fully resolved.