A weekly figure is not a monthly one
The hero repeats one per-week floor three times in a moving marquee. Further down the same page a lower per-week floor appears twice. Both are the seller's own, both are current, and the page reconciles neither.
Neither can be converted into a monthly cost. A weekly rate multiplied by four is not a month, a weekly rate multiplied by four point three is a guess, and neither is safe when the billing period itself is not published.
We have recorded both as not-monthly rows with the unit written into the qualifier, so no page on this site can print a per-month suffix beside a figure the seller quotes by the week. Twenty-six of the one hundred and fifty-eight sellers here carry at least one figure that is not a monthly rate.
The membership answer is a number
The priced page states its membership fee as a figure of zero rather than as a phrase about hidden costs. That is a stronger form of the claim than the no-hidden-fees wording several sellers here use, because a figure is unambiguous.
Fifty-five of the one hundred and fifty-eight sellers here state that no membership applies. Stating it as an amount rather than a reassurance is the version worth having.
The page also lists what is included: dietitians, personalised plans and clinician check-ins.
What it names and what it does not
The privacy policy names the operating limited liability company in its first sentence. The site also states plainly that it does not manufacture the medications and has no direct affiliation with the two manufacturers of the approved products.
Neither drug is named beside a figure. Twenty of the one hundred and fifty-eight sellers here put a price beside a product they will only call a GLP-1.
No compounding pharmacy is named, no individual clinician is named, and no service area is published.
Framework's published pricing
| Medication | Price | Verified |
|---|---|---|
| Glp-1 (compounded) | $25quoted PER WEEK, not per month: "GLP 1s For As Low as $25/Week." A weekly figure cannot be multiplied into a monthly one, and the page carries no monthly figure at all | September 2026source |
| Glp-1 (compounded) | $19a second per-week floor, printed lower down the same page as "For As Low as $19/Week", six dollars a week below the headline; the page never reconciles the two | September 2026source |
compareglp may earn a commission when a reader signs up with a provider through a link on this site. 4 of the 158 providers reviewed here are paid partners today; the other 154 are not. See how this works.
See Framework's current price →Good fit if
- Readers who want to see how a per-week headline compares against the monthly figures the rest of this roster publishes.
- Buyers who want the membership position stated as an amount.
- People who want the included services listed beside the price.
Look elsewhere if
- Anyone who needs a monthly cost; none is published and the weekly figure cannot be converted into one.
- Buyers who want one consistent floor rather than two.
- Readers who need to know which molecule they are buying.
- People who need the pharmacy named or a service area published.
How this review was verified
- Read the priced page and the privacy policy on 6 September 2026, with a nonsense-path control on the host in the same run that returned a clean not-found status.
- Searched the full extracted text of the priced page for any monthly figure and found none; the absence is recorded as a census of what was read.
- Counted the occurrences of each per-week floor rather than recording only the first one, which is how the second, lower figure was found.
- Recorded both weekly figures as not-monthly rows with the unit stated, rather than converting either into a monthly rate.
- Screened the operating entity and the brand name against FDA's live warning-letter datatable, carrying a known letter as a positive control and a nonsense string as a negative control in the same pass; the positive control returned its letter and the negative returned nothing. Neither the entity nor the brand returned one. Untitled letters are published separately and were not searched, so the supportable claim is that no warning letter was found.