Three figures, one programme
The city landing page says the programme starts at one monthly figure for home delivery for the first four to six months and, in the same sentence, that the average cost per month is usually a higher one. The main pricing page lists the weight-loss programme at that higher monthly figure or at a prepaid total for a six-to-eight-month course.
Divide the prepaid total by the stated range and the per-month equivalent lands well below both published monthly figures. So the three figures describe three different ways of buying and the site never lines them up.
Saying the average cost is higher than the starting cost, in the same sentence as the starting cost, is unusually candid. It is also the clearest signal here that the opening figure is not the one to budget against.
The price is not where you would look for it
The main pricing page prices the weight-loss programme among per-treatment aesthetic charges. The city landing page prices it differently. A reader who checked only one of the two would carry away one figure and miss the others.
This is worth stating plainly because an earlier research pass on this seller concluded that the pricing page was aesthetics-only and that the GLP-1 figure lived exclusively on a city page. That is not what the page says: the weight-loss programme is a line item on it, with two figures attached.
An absence claim about a seller's own pricing page needs the page read in full, and that is what changed the answer here.
A regional clinic with no published company
The privacy policy names only the trading name with no company form of any kind, so no legal entity is published. The business serves north Texas through city landing pages and sells aesthetics alongside the GLP-1 line.
A nonsense path on this host returns a not-found status carrying nearly fourteen thousand characters of visible shell text. On this domain, status is the only thing that distinguishes a real address from an invented one.
No compounding pharmacy is named, no individual clinician is named, and no service area is published as a list.
Injectco's published pricing
| Medication | Price | Verified |
|---|---|---|
| Glp-1 (compounded) | $425/mothe pricing page line reads "Weight Loss Program - $425/month or $1800 for 6-8 month program"; the prepaid total works out between $225 and $300 a month depending on which end of the stated six-to-eight-month range applies | September 2026source |
| Semaglutide (compounded) | $249/mothe city landing page says the programme "starts at $249 per month for home delivery for the first four to six months" and, in the same sentence, that "the average cost per month is usually around $425" | 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 Injectco's current price →Good fit if
- North Texas buyers who want an introductory rate and an expected average printed in the same sentence.
- Readers who want a prepaid programme total as an alternative to a monthly rate.
- People who want a clinic that prices its GLP-1 line beside everything else it sells.
Look elsewhere if
- Anyone who wants a single price; three describe the same programme.
- Buyers outside north Texas.
- Readers who want to know which company they are contracting with.
- People who need the compounding pharmacy named.
How this review was verified
- Read the main pricing page and a city landing page on 6 September 2026, with a nonsense-path control on the host in the same run that returned nearly fourteen thousand characters of text under a not-found status.
- Read the pricing page in full rather than scanning it, which is how the weight-loss line item was found; a partial read supports the opposite conclusion.
- Divided the prepaid programme total by both ends of the stated month range rather than by one, and recorded both results in the qualifier.
- Read the privacy policy for a company form and found only the trading name.
- 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.