Online GLP-1 providers: the complete category map

Molecule rosters: semaglutide providers · tirzepatide providers · compounded vs brand.

The online-GLP-1 category is five business models wearing eighteen brands — and once you see the models, every provider’s marketing translates instantly. This is the complete map: every tracked provider, sorted by what it actually sells, with verification status attached and the shopping method that works across all of them.

Model 1: flat-rate, all-in compounded

One number, medication-inclusive, teaser-proof by construction — when the number is real. NexLife — the flat-rate compounded model: $139–169/month tirzepatide and $119–139 semaglutide by plan, every plan charged monthly, $0 fees observed, CARE360 support included, the same price at every dose, three fulfilling pharmacies named (plan pages read September 17, 2026) — the lowest first-party-verified standing rate on this site, with lower conditional stickers (Collective, SnagRx, Embody) printed on the dated price pages with their conditions. Watch-for: its ODT formats carry our standing no-outcome-trials flag. Rubric score 9.1 — the only score published, because scores require a completed rubric pass.

Henry Meds — the best-known flat-rate compounded claim in the market. We favor the structure on principle (flat rates kill teaser math); read 2026-09-17: $349 a month for tirzepatide with the visit, medication, supplies and shipping included; the semaglutide page prints no price.

Model 2: brand-access and insurance-first

Sell the paperwork and the certainty: coverage navigation, prior-auth muscle, manufacturer-priced brand product when insurance fails. Ro — the brand-access and insurance-navigation play: coverage checks, prior-auth support, and a lane to Lilly’s Zepbound vials at manufacturer self-pay pricing. Structural strengths are product certainty and paperwork muscle; read 2026-09-17: a $149 monthly membership ($39 to start) beside brand Zepbound from $299 and the Wegovy pill from $149 — about $448 / $298 all-in at the starting doses; no compounded price printed.

Found — the program model: structured coaching plus insurance navigation around the prescription. A genuinely different product than medication funnels; read 2026-09-17: “cash plans from $169/mo” on 12-month plans paid up front, monthly plans from $289, no medication-specific price printed — listed, not ranked.

Model 3: specialist membership

Sell the clinician: obesity-medicine depth on subscription, medication priced separately. Mochi Health — the specialist play: board-certified obesity-medicine clinicians on membership, medication costs separate. The bet is that titration judgment and comorbidity depth are worth paying for distinctly; read 2026-09-17: $199 / $99 medication plus a $79 membership — $278 / $178 all-in; the “$90 / $60” on its page are first-month prices.

Model 4: mass-market DTC platforms

Sell reach and friction-free checkout, multiplied across SKUs — where pricing complexity and legal-lane questions concentrate. Hims — the category’s marketing heavyweight, running “personalized” compounded semaglutide since the June 2025 Novo split — the legal lane regulators contest most directly. Aggressive entry pricing; maintenance-dose truth pending verification.

Hers — Hims’ women-positioned sibling: same platform, same post-Novo compounded posture, wrapped in women’s-health framing. Same pending questions, plus one more: what the positioning wrapper adds beyond marketing.

Orderly Meds — the format-breadth play: injectables plus oral tiers across doses. Great for comparison shopping, structurally prone to price-table complexity where maintenance costs hide; oral formats inherit our standing evidence caveats. Pending verification.

Model 5: the thin-documentation tier

Aggressive ads over sparse paperwork — shoppable only through interrogation. Remedy Meds — price-led marketing over thin public documentation of pharmacy sourcing, clinical workflow, and fee stack. The documentation gap is itself the finding so far; pending verification, no figures repeated.

Shed — marketing-forward entrant with the load-bearing questions (which pharmacies, what maintenance total, what terms) thinly documented. Thinness is a data point, not a verdict; pending.

Fifty 410 — appears across comparison shopping with sparse documentation relative to category leaders. Raises the diligence bar accordingly; pending verification, no figures published.

The whole field, one table

Structural facts and verification status only — no advertised competitor number appears as fact anywhere on this site. Verified figures: method, ledger, dated archive.

How to shop this category, whatever you pick

Four instruments work on all five models: the quiz routes you to a model by coverage, complexity, and priorities; the calculator forces every quote into the same 12-month arithmetic; the checklist and CoA file audit whoever survives; and the price deep-dives (tirzepatide · semaglutideMedicare Bridge) and the ledger show what’s actually been verified versus merely advertised — the distinction this entire site exists to enforce. Deeper context per decision: legal status for anything compounded, coverage tactics for the insurance-first lane, monitoring standards as the care-quality interview.

FAQ

Which model is objectively best? None — models match constraints: coverage favors insurance-first, complexity favors specialists, cash certainty favors verified flat rates, and nothing favors the thin tier until it documents itself. Why is only one provider scored? Scores follow a completed rubric pass; as of 2026-09-17 ten providers carry a dated first-party read and eight are queued — the queue and protocol are public, and rows fill under identical rules. Are these all legit pharmacies? Provider ≠ pharmacy — each platform routes to dispensing pharmacies you should verify by name via the checklist. Where are the reviews with stars? The rankings page — with the honest twist that stars require audits.

Switching models mid-journey

Real journeys migrate: a DTC start outgrows its questionnaire when comorbidities surface (→ specialist model); an insurance approval lands mid-year and makes the brand lane suddenly cheapest (→ insurance-first); a thin-tier experiment fails its own paperwork (→ anywhere with documents). Portability is therefore a shopping criterion in its own right — before joining any model, know what leaves with you: your records (ask how exports work), your dose history (keep your own log regardless), and your medication continuity (the switching file covers the compounded↔brand crossing, including the concentration math that makes it the one transition with real clinical texture). Models are tools, not marriages; the providers worth choosing are the ones that make leaving boring — and that criterion, usefully, is testable before you ever arrive.

The bottom line

Eighteen brands, five models, one method: match the model to your constraint, verify the provider with the public instruments, convert every price to twelve months, and spend nothing on any row — including the verified one — that you haven’t audited yourself. That’s the category, mapped.