About, ownership & disclosures

Our mission

This publication exists because the compounded-GLP-1 market is unusually hard for a consumer to navigate honestly. Prices are quoted in incompatible ways, mandatory fees hide beneath low headlines, the difference between an approved product and a compounded one is routinely blurred, and pharmacy quality — the thing that most determines what you actually receive — is often undisclosed. Our purpose is to make that market legible: to normalize prices so they can be compared, to separate what's verified from what's merely claimed, to explain the regulatory and safety context in plain language, and to give consumers the tools to verify providers and pharmacies themselves. We measure success by whether a reader leaves better able to make an informed decision, not by whether they click through to any particular provider.

How we make money

Transparency about funding is a precondition for trust in a comparison publication, so we state it plainly. As of 2026-07-20, the publisher attests no material relationship — no affiliate, referral, advertising, ownership, or data-sharing arrangement — with any provider covered. If that changes, we will disclose it: affected records will be updated before the next publication cycle, any compensated links will be labeled as such, and — this is the load-bearing commitment — compensation will never influence rankings, scores, ordering, or editorial conclusions. Our methodology is built so that a provider's standing depends only on verified evidence, which means no amount of compensation could move a provider up a ranking without the evidence to justify it. A comparison site whose order can be bought is worthless; ours is designed so it can't be.

Material-relationship disclosures

Each provider record carries a relationship value from a fixed taxonomy (no known material relationship; affiliate; referral; advertising; shared ownership; common beneficial owner; financial interest; management; editorial control; reviewer affiliation; data sharing; multiple; verification pending). As of 2026-07-20, US Peptides Partners LLC has attested that it has no material relationship with any covered provider. This is a publisher attestation recorded in the disclosure database; it has not been independently audited. If any compensated relationship begins, the affected records will be updated before the next publication cycle, compensated links will be labeled, and no ranking, score, or ordering will be influenced by compensation.

Editorial standards

• Primary sources first: FDA, NIH/PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, CMS, state boards, court records, official labels, then provider first-party pages — never other comparison sites as primary sources for pricing or regulatory facts.
• Providers are never guaranteed favorable treatment; any provider loses any category the moment another eligible program shows a lower verified normalized cost.
• No fake urgency, countdowns, stock levels, preselected providers, compensation-based ordering, or forced email walls.
• Medical and regulatory claims follow the language rules in methodology v1.0; medical review credits will name reviewers on each reviewed page.

How we verify information

Every commercial figure on the site traces to a record in our public evidence ledger, with a source, capture date, verification status, and confidence level. We distinguish provider-reported claims from independently verified facts, we suppress figures that conflict rather than averaging them, and we don't publish a ranking until enough programs in a category are checkout-verified. Pricing follows a documented normalization methodology, and the underlying datasets are downloadable so anyone can check our arithmetic. Where we haven't yet verified something, we say so — "unverified" appears throughout the site precisely because we won't dress a claim up as a fact.

What we are not

We are a consumer health publication and comparison resource, and it's as important to say what that excludes. We are not a government agency, regulator, medical board, or pharmacy board — we have no authority over any provider or pharmacy. We are not a healthcare provider or pharmacy — we prescribe nothing, dispense nothing, and sell no medication. We are not a substitute for professional medical advice — nothing on the site diagnoses, treats, or tells you what to take. And we are not "official," "government approved," or affiliated with any regulator. Decisions about whether a compounded product is appropriate, at what dose, from which provider, belong to you and a licensed clinician who knows your history.

Corrections

To report an error, email [email protected] with the page URL and the issue. Material corrections are noted visibly on the affected page with the date of the change; publication dates are never backdated or refreshed cosmetically. A substantiated correction enters the evidence ledger like any other piece of evidence, with the reporter's claim distinguished from what we independently verify.

How our rankings stay honest

The single most important design decision on this site is that a provider's position cannot be bought, and it is worth being specific about how that is enforced rather than merely asserted. Rankings are gated on verified evidence: no provider is called "most affordable" until at least three programs in its category clear checkout verification, and until then only qualified "lowest advertised" findings appear, each carrying its evidence status. Because the ordering is computed from captured figures rather than assigned editorially, there is no lever a provider could pay to move. If a compensated relationship ever begins, it will be disclosed on every affected page before the next publication cycle, the link will be labeled, and the ranking logic will not change — the figures still decide. The site is built so that a provider's prominence, page length, or review depth carries no weight in any ranking; only the captured, verified figures do.

Team