One company, three shopfronts
We searched the FDA's live warning-letter table for the company behind this brand and it returns exactly three letters, one for each of three trading names. Two of those names are already rows on this site.
That matters for anyone comparing options. Three entries that look like three companies are three doors into one, and a reader who thinks they are diversifying by trying the next one is not.
We keep them as separate rows because they are separate storefronts with separate letters, and we say plainly on each that they share an owner.
It calls you somebody else's patient
The homepage greets you by this brand's own name. The terms-of-use page greets you by a sibling brand's name, and both that page and the weight-loss FAQ link to reviews from that sibling's patients — nine mentions on the FAQ alone.
This is not an inference from a shared design. It is the other brand's name, rendered in the visible text of the page that sets out the contract.
The prices, and which regime they belong to
A compounded semaglutide figure is published on the priced page with its condition attached: the rate holds when a three-month supply is bought. A compounded tirzepatide figure appears only in the FAQ.
The tile carrying the semaglutide figure is labelled as an insurance route, while the FAQ presents the same number as the option for people not using insurance. The page contradicts itself about which regime the figure belongs to.
The cheapest number on the page is not a price at all: it sits under an insurance heading, names four brand-name drugs, and is a copay that depends on an approved prior authorisation. We store it separately so it can never be subtracted from a cash figure.
A membership exists, its first month is discounted, and its ongoing rate is never published.
Who is behind it
The terms name the operating company and the two clinical entities that employ the clinicians. The footer copyright uses a different corporate form of the same name, which is the sort of inconsistency worth noticing on a contract page.
No compounding pharmacy is named, no prescribing clinician is named, and no list of served states appears.
It carries an FDA warning letter issued in February 2026 over false and misleading claims and misbranding. That is a disclosure and it does not move this seller's position here.
FitRx's published pricing
| Medication | Price | Verified |
|---|---|---|
| Semaglutide (compounded) | $151/moas low as, with the condition printed on the tile itself — "when purchased quarterly" — and repeated in the FAQ as "starting as low as $151 per month when purchasing a 3-month supply". ⛔ The tile carries the label "With Insurance" although the FAQ presents this figure as the route for members who do not use insurance | September 2026source |
| Tirzepatide (compounded) | $216/moas low as, from the FAQ — "semaglutide may be available for as low as $151 per month, and tirzepatide for as low as $216 per month, depending on eligibility and treatment plan"; no tile on the priced page carries a tirzepatide figure | September 2026source |
compareglp may earn a commission when a reader signs up with a provider through a link on this site. 4 of the 264 providers reviewed here are paid partners today; the other 260 are not. See how this works.
See FitRx's current price →Good fit if
- Readers already looking at its two sibling brands who want the third for comparison.
- Buyers who want somebody to work an insurance prior authorisation first.
- People who will read a tile's heading before its number.
Look elsewhere if
- Anyone who thinks they are choosing an independent alternative to its siblings.
- Buyers who need the total monthly outlay, given the unpublished membership rate.
- Readers who need the pharmacy or the prescriber named.
- Anyone who needs their state confirmed before starting.
How this review was verified
- Read the homepage, the privacy policy, the terms of use, the priced weight-loss page and the weight-loss FAQ on 7 September 2026, comparing requested to effective URLs, with a nonsense path on the same host in the same run, which returned a 404.
- Searched the FDA's live warning-letter table for the operating company rather than the brand, which is what surfaced the three-letter, three-brand pattern, and confirmed two of those brands are already rows here.
- Counted the sibling brand's name in the extracted text of this seller's own pages rather than describing the overlap impressionistically.
- Kept the insurance copay out of the price list entirely and recorded the condition attached to it.
- Confirmed both controls green on the FDA screen — a positive control returning exactly one row and a nonsense control returning none — before recording any letter.