Scoring System

Seven inputs, published weights

Our disclosure score measures what a programme publishes before you pay — not the quality of its care, which we have no way to measure and will not pretend to. Price stated at every dose tier is worth 25 points; price independent of dose 20; pharmacy or prescriber named 15; no separate membership 10; prepaid term published 10; state availability published 10; delivery formats published 10.

Why publication rather than quality

Because publication is checkable and quality is not, at least not from the outside. A programme that names its pharmacy has given you the one fact that lets you check a state board register yourself. A programme with excellent clinicians and no disclosure has given you nothing to verify.

Recompute it yourself

Every input is derivable from the published dataset, so the number can be reproduced. If you think the weighting is wrong, take the data and weight it differently — that is why it is published.

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.

What the inputs look like in practice

Of the 16 priced programmes, 11 name a dispensing pharmacy or prescriber before purchase, 11 charge no separate recurring fee, and 12 hold one price at every dose.

Those three inputs alone separate the field more than price does. A programme can sit mid-table on cost and top the disclosure score, and several do.

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.