How the scores are built.

Providers were discovered with the Bright Data SERP API, running 150 queries across Google and Bing over four sweeps — fourteen seed topics, then a pass targeting segments the first missed (oral GLP-1s, microdosing, men’s services, employer benefits, non-US markets), then a third on brand names — every approved GLP-1 brand, the discontinued ones, the insulin combinations and the pipeline — and a fourth on the long tail of smaller providers, which also opened up the UK market. That returned 1,269 organic results, which were deduplicated by domain and filtered against a list of editorial and aggregator sites to leave the companies that actually sell or prescribe.

Every discovered provider was then checked against its own pages. Nothing was written from a search snippet: if the company’s site could not be retrieved, no review was written. That is why 2 frequently-surfaced names — including the single most-referenced domain in the whole sweep, whose most recent usable archive is seven months stale — appear as a documented gap rather than as reviews.

Where a company blocks retrieval entirely, we try its corporate newsroom, and then a dated Wayback Machine snapshot of its own pages. Two reviews — Ro and Hers — rest on archived snapshots rather than live pages, and both say so at the top, with the snapshot date shown. An archive is the provider’s own page, pinned to a date; it is good evidence provided the date travels with it, which is why it does.

Where a company publishes a fact, it is quoted or closely paraphrased and attributed. Where it does not, the field reads “not stated in the sources we checked” rather than being filled from general knowledge. The gaps are findings in their own right, and they are counted.

Market scope: Primarily the United States, with a UK section. US prices are USD and refer to the FDA; UK prices are GBP and refer to the MHRA. Every provider page states which market it covers. Providers were discovered on google.com and bing.com with US geolocation. Nothing on this site describes availability, pricing or approval status anywhere else, and a reader outside the US should treat every figure here as inapplicable rather than as a converted equivalent.

The score is not comparable across markets. In the UK, advertising a prescription-only medicine to the public is prohibited, so a British provider that omits its price is usually complying rather than concealing — which we explain separately. Compare US providers with US providers.

Every provider is also checked against the FDA warning-letter record. Five of those reviewed here are named recipients, and each of those reviews opens with the action, the entity the regulator named, and a link to the letter. That check is structured rather than written into prose, so a new review cannot quietly omit it.

One limitation to state plainly: fda.gov refused automated retrieval throughout. FDA positions cited on this site are therefore sourced from the search index rather than a page fetch, and claims are held to what the indexed text supports. Those pages are linked so you can read them directly.