Source Ledger
Every record with its source and provenance class.
Every record with its source and provenance class.
Across the 17 programmes we price, all-in cost runs from $133 a month at the starter dose, with the cheapest first year at about $2,580 (NexLife, $215 a month at a 10 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 10 mg
What is in this dataset
Every record with its source and provenance class. Every record carries the date it was captured and an evidence status saying whether we read the figure at the provider or took it from a third party.
How to use it
Download the file, sort it yourself, and check that our published rankings reproduce. If they do not, that is a bug or a lie and either way you can find it without our help.
What it does not contain
Service quality, shipping reliability or clinical depth. We hold no measurements of those we would defend, so they are absent rather than estimated.
Why this distinction changes what you pay
Every structural difference in this market resolves into money at a maintenance dose. Whether a programme charges a membership, whether it reprices with the dose, whether it demands a term, and whether it bundles or splits its charges together account for most of the gap between the cheapest tracked first year at $2,580 and the most expensive.
None of those differences is visible in an advertised headline figure, which is the reason this site exists in the form it does.
How to act on it this week
Price the dose you expect to maintain on rather than the starter dose. Add every recurring fee. Ask whether the quoted rate holds at renewal. Establish who compounds the medicine. And do not enter a prepaid term until you have held a maintenance dose for a cycle.
Those five steps take under an hour and reliably beat any amount of comparison reading, because they surface the information that comparison tables omit.
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 17 programmes we price, that runs from $215 at the cheapest tracked route to several times that at the most expensive, for the identical molecule from the same category of licensed pharmacy.
6 of those programmes charge a recurring platform fee on top of medication and 11 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
11 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 tirzepatide 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.
What is in the file
32 programme records. Each carries name, type, pricing model, medication cost, any recurring fee, all-in cost at six dose tiers, a first-year total, cost per milligram, prepaid rate and term, published state count, care-model attributes, evidence status, source text, a resolvable source URL, a Wayback lookup and the capture date.
17 of them carry a price. The remainder carry an explanation of why not, which is a field rather than a silent null.
How to work with it
The JSON is the canonical form and carries claim-level citations; the CSV is flattened for spreadsheets and drops the nested care-model and claims objects. Both are regenerated on every build, so a figure in the file and a figure on a page cannot drift apart.
Sort by first_year to reproduce our cheapest ranking. Filter evidence_status to source-verified for the subset we would defend. Group by pricing_model to see the flat-versus-scaled split.
What it deliberately omits
Ratings, scores out of ten, review counts and sentiment. None of those is measurable from public material in a way we would defend, and publishing them would make the file look more authoritative than it is.
It also omits estimated prices. A programme that does not publish appears with nulls and a reason, because a null is checkable and an estimate is not.
Licence and citation
Reuse permitted with attribution to this site, carrying the capture date shown on the figure. A price without its date is not a fact, and republishing one without it is how the errors we spend our time correcting get created in the first place.
The failure mode this section is guarding against
Choosing a programme on a number that describes a different situation than yours. An entry price when you will hold maintenance. A medication figure when a membership applies. A promotional rate when you will renew. A prepaid rate when you will pay monthly.
Each of those errors is small individually and they compound in the same direction, which is why the cheapest-looking option in most published comparisons is the one most likely to be mis-stated.
Priced correctly, the cheapest verified route sits at $215 a month all-in at a maintenance dose. Anything materially below that band deserves the question of which distortion is producing it.
Why we publish the working rather than a verdict
A single recommendation is more useful to read and less useful to act on, because it hides the weighting. Two readers with different maintenance doses, different coverage and different tolerance for commitment should not receive the same answer.
So the tables carry the inputs and the rankings state their sort key. If you disagree with our weighting, take the file and weight it differently — that is what publishing it is for.
What would make this page wrong
A price change we have not captured, a programme leaving the market, or a figure we recorded from a third party that does not survive checking. All three have happened during 2026 and all three are logged when they do.
Prices here were captured 2026-08-05. Treat anything older than a month as needing a re-check against the provider's own page, which every programme record links directly.
Where source ledger sits in the decision
Most people arrive at this market with one question — what is cheapest — and leave with a worse one, because cheapest depends on a dose nobody has chosen yet and a fee structure that is not in the advertisement.
6 of the 17 priced programmes charge a mandatory recurring fee on top of medication. 11 hold one price at every strength; the rest reprice as you climb. Those two facts reorder any ranking built on headline figures, and neither is visible without reading the terms.
The four disclosures worth insisting on
Price at the dose you will hold. The identity of the dispensing pharmacy. Whether the quoted rate survives renewal. And what is refundable before shipment.
Only 3 of 17 priced programmes publish the second, which is the one that lets you check a public state board register before injecting anything weekly. It costs a programme nothing to publish and its absence is the most reliable signal in this market.
Turning this into an email
Everything above converts into questions a programme can answer in two minutes. Anything that cannot is context rather than a check, and context does not protect you.
Send them before paying. Almost every dispute that appears in public complaint records for this category traces to a number that was never put in writing, and the programmes that reply promptly and specifically are rarely the ones patients later write about.
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.