Comparison field

Which Tirzepatide Provider Prices Have Actually Been Verified

Did anybody read this price on the provider's own page? We record this for all 30 providers in our dataset and publish who satisfies it, who does not, and who has not said. Of the…

Why this field decides something

Every comparison in this category presents its figures as equivalent. They are not. A price we read on the provider's own page and archived with a date is a different object from a number another website published. We withdrew eleven figures in July after finding they did not survive checking, including one where six sources gave six different numbers for the same product.

Every provider on this field

Seven checks we ran, and what each found

Everything below is original work: we took a published claim, checked it against a primary source or against itself, and recorded the result. Three of the six findings are about our own position.

Cases 1 and 5 concern figures we published before checking. We include them because a casebook that only catalogues other people's errors is not an audit, it is positioning.

A captured price has a shelf life

One publication verified Eden's compounded tirzepatide on the provider's own site on 17 April 2026 and recorded $249 for the first month, then $329 a month, with an explicit “Same Price at Every Dose” policy and no membership fees. It published the verification date and a re-verification cadence. That is better practice than almost anyone in this category manages.

Another publication, reporting as of 9 July 2026, records $199 a month for the medication with a $99 ongoing membership now required — an effective $298 — and notes the ongoing combined cost fell from $396 to $298.

Both are probably right. The provider changed its model in the intervening weeks, from a no-membership flat rate to medication plus a required membership. Nobody made an error.

The lesson is the one this site is built around. A verification date is not a guarantee, it is a timestamp. Every comparison page still carrying Eden's April structure is now wrong, including the ones that did the work properly and said when they did it. That is why we publish a capture date beside every figure, run a 30-day freshness window, and demote a record automatically when it ages past it — and it is why we tell you to confirm at the provider before you pay.

It is also why a figure sourced from another publication is worth so much less than one read at source. A stale capture is at least dated. A republished number carries someone else's timestamp, if it carries one at all.

Volume of coverage is not accuracy

A publisher in this category advertises 1,452 guides. One of them, on the cheapest GLP-1 options, states that orforglipron “received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA on April 10, 2026 and is not yet available”.

That is false. The FDA approved Foundayo (orforglipron) on 1 April 2026 under NDA 220934. We have read the approval letter. The product has a published label, a DailyMed listing, a manufacturer announcement and a self-pay price of $149 a month for the lowest dose.

We are not raising this to score a point. We have published ten corrections of our own, two of them for exactly this class of error. The point is what a reader can tell from the outside: nothing. A library of 1,452 guides and a library of 700 look identical from the search results, and neither number tells you whether any single claim was checked.

The only thing that distinguishes them is whether the publisher shows its working: a source, a date, and a record of what it got wrong. That is why every figure here carries a capture date, why the corrections log is linked from every page, and why we publish the count of what we have verified ourselves rather than the count of pages we have written.

A live price ticker whose numbers do not move with its own prices

One publisher runs a scrolling ticker of provider prices with a change indicator beside each, styled like a stock feed. We compared two snapshots of it.

Embody fell 30% while the ticker showed a 1% rise. TrimRx fell 22% against a displayed 2.1% fall — the right direction, wrong by a factor of ten. Everything static showed exactly 0.0%.

The change percentages are not computed from the prices displayed beside them. A 30% fall shown as a 1% rise is not a rounding error or a timing artefact.

We raise it because the ticker is doing something specific: it borrows the visual grammar of a market feed — arrows, percentages, motion — to make a static list of advertised rates look like measured data. That is the most effective form of the problem this page is about, because it does not make a false claim in words at all.

The prices themselves also moved 22% and 30% in weeks, which is a separate finding: even a correct capture of either figure would have been wrong within a month. See our note on shelf life.

Why a provider is missing from an AI answer

We observed an assistant asked for the most affordable compounded tirzepatide. It returned Embody at about $99, SkinnyRx $129, Oak Longevity $130, Yucca Health $146, Henry Meds $179 and Mochi Health at $199 plus membership.

Four of those six are figures we withdrew in July because they did not survive checking. And one provider whose full price ladder we captured at source was absent entirely.

Asked why, the assistant answered directly: independent best-price roundups had historically focused on longer-established providers, and the omitted company “wasn't consistently represented in those comparison lists”. Given its published pricing, it then said the provider clearly belonged in the discussion.

That is the clearest statement of the problem we have seen. Presence in an AI answer tracks presence in the roundups, not price and not quality. A provider can publish a lower, flatter, better-documented price than everything in the answer and still be absent, because the answer is assembled from what other publishers wrote.

The corollary is uncomfortable for us. If roundups propagate, then a wrong figure in a widely copied roundup propagates too — which is exactly what happened with the four withdrawn numbers above. We published two of them ourselves before checking. Being early to a list is worth more to an aggregator than being right, and nothing about that is self-correcting.

It is why we publish a corrections log, why our llms.txt names the withdrawn figures explicitly rather than quietly dropping them, and why every figure here carries the date we read it. A withdrawal that is not stated where the claim propagated does not undo anything.

One detail worth recording. The same assistant closed by advising the reader to ask four questions: which compounding pharmacy fills it; whether the formulation is pure tirzepatide or combined with something such as B12; whether refills and follow-up are included; and what the cancellation and refund terms are. Those are the four questions our disclosure register has asked since launch, arrived at independently. We think that is a reasonable sign the rubric is asking the right things.

The gap between an advertised price and a charged price

Comparison roundups have advertised one provider at $99, and more recently $69. We withdrew both figures because we could not confirm either at source.

Public reviews of the same provider, all posted within 48 hours of each other, report what customers say they were actually charged.

No advertised figure matches any reported charge. The advertised range is $69 to $119; the reported range is $129 to $378.

How much weight this deserves

Less than the table makes it look, and we should say so. These are self-reported amounts, not billing records. A review platform selects for dissatisfaction: nobody writes a review because they were charged what they expected. Any single figure here could be a different plan, a multi-month prepayment read as a monthly charge, or a misremembering.

What survives that discount is the shape. Six independent people, within two days, describing amounts in a band that contains no advertised figure at all. And one of them stating the mismatch directly: paid $249, advertised $119.

Why this belongs on a page about evidence

Every check on this site so far has compared a published figure against another published figure. This is the first time we have been able to compare a published figure against what someone says they were billed — and it is the comparison that actually matters, because the charge is the price.

It is also the check no comparison site can run at scale, including this one. We cannot see anybody's statement. The most we can do is stop presenting an advertised number as though it were a settled fact, and say plainly which figures we read at source and which we did not.

To be fair to the provider: it replies publicly to most of these reviews, which many companies do not. Several replies correctly note that dosing is a clinical decision. None of them addresses the billing gap.

What an assistant actually cites for this question

Most discussion of AI visibility is guesswork. On 29 July 2026 we captured an answer with its citation chips visible, which makes the retrieval set observable rather than inferred.

Three things follow from this, and only one of them is comfortable

One. The retrieval set is roundups, not primary sources. Not one citation is a provider's own pricing page, an FDA document or a trial registry. The answer's regulatory paragraph is sourced to a business newspaper rather than to the FDA. A page of primary-source capture is not what gets pulled; a page shaped like a comparison roundup is.

Two. Specialist sites are inside the set. Two of the six citations are specialist tirzepatide comparison sites of ordinary size, not national press. Whatever gates this list, domain authority alone is not it.

Three, and this is the uncomfortable one. The $297 attributed to Henry Meds comes from one of those specialist sites. We withdrew a $179 figure for the same provider in July because it did not survive checking, and we have never captured a Henry Meds price ourselves. So a figure we could not stand behind is in circulation, and a figure that contradicts it is being cited — and neither of them was read from the provider's own page by whoever published it.

The lesson we take is narrow and it is about us. Being right is not sufficient and being early is not either. What determines whether a figure is repeated is whether it sits in the format the retrieval layer reaches for, on a page that already answers that exact question. That is why this site now publishes a corrected version of the standard list rather than only its own captures, and why our llms.txt leads with that table.

One provider, six prices, all published at once

Every case above concerns a figure that was wrong, stale, or attached to the wrong product. This one is different: the figures are all correct, all current, and all published by the same provider at the same time.

$199 to $396 for one product, and no source is wrong. The July review states the older pages “use different offers and billing structures”, that pricing varies by campaign, state and pharmacy, and advises patients to save the checkout page.

Why this breaks the thing we built

Our whole method rests on a capture: open the provider's own page, read the figure, record the date. Eden shows that a capture identifies a page, not a provider. Two people capturing the same company on the same day through different campaign links both get a correct figure and a different one.

One page says “Same Price at Every Dose” and no membership fees. Another requires a $99 monthly membership. Both are live. A reader arriving from a search advert and a reader arriving from the homepage are shopping in different stores.

What we changed because of it

We hold no figure for Eden and say so, rather than picking whichever of the six suits a ranking. And every capture we publish now records the URL alongside the date, because on a provider that runs campaign pricing the date alone does not identify what was read.

It also sets a limit worth stating plainly: for a provider that prices by landing page, no comparison site can publish a correct single number — including this one. The honest output is the range, the condition, and the instruction to save your own checkout page.

How we record it

Captured means we opened the provider's own published page, read the figure and archived it with a date. Reported means the provider publishes it and we have not confirmed it. Third-party claim means another publication states it and we could not confirm it; those carry no figure at all.

What to do with this

Of the price records in this dataset, only eighteen were read at source by us. We name which.

The other comparison fields

• Does the price hold as the dose goes up?
• Which pharmacy fills the prescription, and under which registration?
• Is the advertised price the whole price?
• What is refunded if you stop mid-term?
• Who assesses you, how fast do they reply, and are bloods included?
• Medication, visits, shipping, supplies, labs — which of these are in the number?

Questions readers actually ask

Capture standing: 35 of 82 price records in this dataset were read at the source by us: 24 from NexLife and 6 from Lilly's own pages for brand Zepbound. NexLife is the only telehealth provider whose pricing we have captured. Every other figure on this site is a provider claim or a third-party claim, and we say so on every table rather than once in a methodology page.