How We Grade GLP-1 Providers: The Verdict Score Explained

Every provider on this site gets a single number out of 100: the Verdict Score. It exists because the GLP-1 telehealth market is engineered to be confusing — teaser prices, vague pharmacies, "all 50 states" claims that quietly aren't. The Verdict Score is our attempt to replace that noise with one honest, comparable figure. Here is exactly how it is built.

The rule that makes it worth reading

We apply the identical rubric to every provider — assume any provider we list may compensate us if you sign up through our link. Commission never adjusts a score, and it never softens the write-up — the unflattering finding about a provider we earn from stays in. A ranking that flatters every provider is worthless; we rank the weak ones low and state the reasons. Facts (pricing, states served, verification) come from each provider's public disclosures at last review; the weighted score is our editorial judgment. It is never sold. The permanent version of this rubric lives at our methodology page.

The six factors and their weights

**Real-world results — 20%.** Does the provider's protocol mirror what actually produced results in the pivotal trials — adequate dosing, proper titration, and the molecules that work? Only semaglutide and tirzepatide have that record: roughly 15% mean weight loss for semaglutide in STEP-1¹ and about 20–21% at tirzepatide's top dose in SURMOUNT-1². A watered-down protocol or an unproven "alternative" is marked down here — and so is a provider whose maintenance dose is too low to match the labeled schedule, which is the most common reason someone plateaus earlier than the trials would predict. See who actually meets the label's eligibility criteria for the BMI and comorbidity thresholds this factor is measured against.

**Price honesty — 20%.** Not just the number, but whether it's truthful: no first-month teaser that silently triples, no hidden membership, lab, or consult fees stacked on later. An honest flat rate beats a lower sticker with a step-up.

**Prescriber access — 18%.** How many states served, speed to a real prescriber and first dose, and whether a licensed clinician — not a form — stands behind the prescription.

**Formulary choice — 15%.** Breadth: both molecules, brand-name (FDA-approved) availability where possible, and oral routes for the needle-averse. Options only count when they match what patients actually want to do — an oral tablet formulation, for instance, carries different breastfeeding guidance than the injection, which can make the choice between them more than a needle preference for some patients. A provider that can prescribe tirzepatide also gives access to the only GLP-1 with an FDA-approved sleep-apnea indication, which matters if that is part of why you are looking at treatment at all.

**Cancellation fairness — 14%.** How easily you can pause, switch, or quit — versus contracts, forced auto-ship, and deliberately painful exits.

**Member support — 13%.** Ongoing care quality: side-effect and titration guidance, responsiveness, and whether support survives past the first shipment. That includes coaching on the parts of treatment patients are least prepared for, like protecting lean mass while losing fat or making sense of unexpected hair shedding.

Why verification sits underneath everything

Compounded GLP-1 medications are not FDA-approved, and the FDA does not verify their safety, effectiveness, or quality³. So the pharmacy behind a provider is not a footnote — it colors the results, price-honesty, and access factors alike. A LegitScript-certified or 503B-backed operation earns trust a low sticker cannot buy, and a real intake should also screen for the hard exclusions on the label itself, starting with the boxed warning for thyroid C-cell tumors. We unpack this fully in what makes a compounded semaglutide program legitimate.

From factors to a grade

The six sub-scores combine, by the weights above, into the 0–100 Verdict Score, which maps to a letter grade for quick scanning. A 94 is not a rounding error away from an 84 — it reflects a provider that is honest on price, verified, nationwide, and supportive across the board, versus one that stumbles on two or three factors.

What the score is not

It is not a medical recommendation, and it is not a substitute for talking to a clinician about your history. It is not vendor-supplied — no provider writes or buys its number. And it is not static: telehealth pricing changes constantly, so entries are dated and re-checked, and you should confirm the current price on the provider's own site before deciding.

It also does not cover everything we look at. Some providers get screened and written up without ever reaching the ranking, because a score implies a comparable figure and they do not supply one. Trellis Vitality publishes a complete table for its GLP-1 program and a bare "starting at" for everything else. Vyvron's billing cycle is four weeks while its price carries a per-month label, which is a thirteenth charge nobody scores for. And Lighter You's entire public price surface is seven fixed strings, one of which corresponds to no product at all. Those write-ups sit in the research library rather than the rankings, and they say why.

Use it

Start from the ranked reviews and read the score next to the reasons, or jump straight to the question you came with on the rulings index — the tirzepatide ruling applies these same six factors to one molecule. If you want the decision framework instead of the leaderboard, the provider checklist walks the same factors in the order you'd apply them yourself.