About Weight Loss Rankings

I built Weight Loss Rankings because the GLP-1 telehealth market in 2026 is overwhelming. There are 80+ providers, prices range from $75 to $1,500/month, regulations vary by state, and information is scattered across forums, ad-driven listicles, and provider websites that all claim to be “the best.” I wanted one place where the data is structured, the scoring is transparent, and the recommendations are honest about commercial relationships.

I kept running into the same frustration: you’d search for “cheapest compounded semaglutide” and get ten near-identical articles, written by people who clearly hadn’t used any of the services, ranking whichever provider paid the highest affiliate commission that quarter. Pricing pages were vague. Eligibility rules were buried in FAQs. Nobody was doing the boring work of actually keeping a database current. This site is my attempt to do that boring work in public.

Every provider in the database starts with a structured intake: I pull their current pricing directly from their public site, note which states they operate in, record their medication options and dose ladders, and document their medical oversight model (async vs. synchronous, MD vs. NP, etc.). Where possible, I cross-check against state pharmacy board filings and 503A/503B registrations for the compounding pharmacies they use.

Scoring happens through a fixed algorithm across six weighted dimensions — value, effectiveness, user experience, trust and safety, accessibility, and ongoing support. The full breakdown lives on the methodology page. I don’t override scores manually. If a provider deserves a higher rating, they need to improve on one of the measured dimensions.

Prices and state availability are reviewed at least monthly. Big changes — a provider exits a state, launches a new dose, changes compounding partners — get reflected as I find them. If you spot something stale, email me and I’ll fix it fast.

I’m an independent publisher. The site is reader-supported via affiliate partnerships — when a reader signs up with a provider through a link on this site, we sometimes earn a commission. Those commissions pay for the hosting, the research time, the database work, and the long-form medical guides.

I’m committed to transparency about how those relationships work. Commercial relationships can influence placement (which cards are featured, which comparisons are highlighted), but they do not influence scores. The scoring algorithm is the same for every provider. A provider without any affiliate arrangement is graded exactly the same way as one who pays us $200 per signup.

Weight Loss Rankings makes money through affiliate commissions. When a reader clicks a link to a provider and signs up, we may earn a one-time or recurring commission. That’s the only revenue source right now — no display ads, no paid “sponsored review” content disguised as editorial, no sold rankings.

Not every provider on the site has an affiliate relationship with us. We rank and review them anyway, because leaving them out would defeat the purpose of the site. The full details are on our affiliate disclosure page.

Weight Loss Rankings is a reader-supported publication. We participate in affiliate programs with some of the providers we cover, and we may earn a commission when readers click through our links and sign up. Some providers also pay for sponsored placements that are clearly labeled wherever they appear.

Editorial decisions — what we cover, how we score, what we say in a review — are made independently of those commercial relationships. Every provider in our database is run through the same published scoring methodology (value, effectiveness, UX, trust, accessibility, support), and commercial relationships do not change the inputs to that algorithm. Sponsored placements affect where a provider appears (e.g. a featured slot on a category page) but not the underlying score. For the full picture of how commercial relationships affect placement on the site, see our Affiliate Disclosure.

No provider gets a preview, right of review, or veto over our editorial copy before it’s published. No provider can pull a review by threatening to cancel an affiliate relationship. Where the editorial team is wrong about a fact, we correct it; where we’re wrong about a judgment call, we don’t.