The plan is not the length it is called
The product pages describe a three-month plan and then state, in the seller's own words, that it renews every eleven weeks. Eleven weeks is seventy-seven days. Three months is about ninety-one.
Over a year that difference is close to an extra charge. The seller does not present it as a discount or a shorter cycle; it simply calls the plan by one length and bills it at another.
We have recorded both drug rows as not monthly, with the arithmetic written into the qualifier, so no page on this site can print a per-month suffix beside a figure the seller charges on a different cycle.
The advertised monthly rate uses the wrong divisor
Beneath each plan the seller prints a per-month figure. That figure is the plan total divided by three. Divide the same total by the number of thirty-day months in eleven weeks instead and the true monthly cost is noticeably higher.
This is the quiet version of a price problem. Nothing is hidden, no figure is wrong on its own terms, and the two statements simply cannot both describe the same billing cycle.
On the tirzepatide page the contradiction is on one screen: the store price line carries a per-month suffix while the plan terms underneath it say every eleven weeks.
What it does name
The Terms name the corporate pharmacy and its trading name. Thirty-two of the one hundred and fifty-eight sellers here name a compounding or dispensing pharmacy at all, and this is one of them.
The Terms also state what happens to a refund requested before a prescription is written: the total paid less a professional services fee. That is more than most of this roster publishes about refunds.
The operator is less settled. The Terms name a limited liability company and the Privacy Policy names a corporation of the same brand name. Both are recorded and neither is treated as the answer.
HelloWellness's published pricing
| Medication | Price | Verified |
|---|---|---|
| Semaglutide (compounded) | $399charged once for a plan the same page says "will automatically renew for $399 every 11 weeks"; eleven weeks is seventy-seven days, so this is nearer $158 for a thirty-day month, while the seller advertises $133 a month by dividing by three months it does not bill. Shown against a struck $599 | September 2026source |
| Tirzepatide (compounded) | $499same shape: renews "every 11 weeks", advertised as $166 a month. The store price line on the same page reads "/ month" beside this figure while the plan terms below it read "every 11 weeks". Shown against a struck $749 | 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 HelloWellness's current price →Good fit if
- Buyers who want the fulfilling pharmacy named in the seller's own Terms.
- Readers who want the renewal amount and the cancellation right printed on the product page.
- People comparing prepaid plans who will do the eleven-week arithmetic themselves.
Look elsewhere if
- Anyone budgeting on a calendar month; this seller does not bill on one.
- Readers who want the advertised monthly rate to match the billing cycle.
- Buyers who want a single, settled legal entity.
- Anyone who needs a published service area.
How this review was verified
- Read both product pages and the Terms and Privacy Policy on 6 September 2026, with a nonsense-path control on the host in the same run.
- Joined adjacent text nodes before matching prices; the struck list price and the plan price render in separate elements on both pages.
- Computed the eleven-week interval against the seller's own stated per-month figure rather than accepting either number on its own.
- Recorded both entity names as published, on the pages that carry them, without resolving which one contracts with the patient.
- 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.