Arithmetic that survives checking
Each drug carries a regular monthly price, a first-month price marked with the amount saved, and three multi-month tiers with both a per-month equivalent and the amount billed upfront. Every stated saving on both drugs was checked against the regular rate and every one of them holds.
Seventy-eight of the one hundred and fifty-eight sellers here carry a headline figure that is promotional, introductory, or conditioned on a commitment the number does not disclose. This is the opposite case: the condition is stated, the standing rate is stated, and the two agree.
Twenty-three of the one hundred and fifty-eight sellers here carry a recorded introductory rate. The ones worth having are the ones that print the standing rate beside it, which this does on both drugs.
What the annual plan actually saves
The annual plan is advertised as a per-month equivalent with a yearly saving attached. Multiply the difference between the regular rate and the annual rate by twelve and the advertised figure comes out exactly, for both drugs.
That is a saving a reader can act on rather than a marketing number, and it is the sort of check that takes a minute and is worth doing on every seller here.
The upfront amount for each tier is also printed, so a reader knows what the card is charged as well as what the rate implies.
What it does not name
The pharmacies are described by their compounding licensing categories rather than named, which is the substitution one hundred and twenty-six of the one hundred and fifty-eight sellers here make.
No individual prescribing clinician is named, and no service area is published. The trademark line names the operating limited liability company, which is clean.
The membership claim is worded as a promise about hidden fees rather than a flat statement that no membership exists. We record it as none and quote the wording, because the distinction is the reader's to weigh.
MyFastRx's published pricing
| Medication | Price | Verified |
|---|---|---|
| Semaglutide (compounded) | $139/mothe regular monthly price; multi-month tiers on the same site are $99 a month billed $297 for three, $89 a month billed $534 for six, and $79 a month billed $948 for twelve, and each stated saving reconciles against this figure | September 2026source |
| Tirzepatide (compounded) | $199/mothe regular monthly price; the annual plan is quoted at $124 a month and the stated saving of $900 a year is exactly twelve times the difference | 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 MyFastRx's current price →Good fit if
- Buyers who want the promotional price, the standing price and the multi-month totals all published together.
- Readers who check advertised savings; every one here reconciles.
- People who want to know what is charged upfront as well as what the monthly rate is.
Look elsewhere if
- Anyone who wants the compounding pharmacy named rather than described by licensing class.
- Buyers who need an individual prescriber named.
- Readers who need a service-area list.
- People who want an explicit statement that no membership exists rather than a promise about hidden fees.
How this review was verified
- Read the savings page and the semaglutide product page on 6 September 2026, with a nonsense-path control on the host in the same run.
- Checked all eight advertised savings against the seller's own regular rates and its own upfront totals; every one reconciles.
- Joined adjacent text nodes before matching prices; the multi-month cards split the rate, the term and the upfront total across separate elements.
- Quoted the membership wording rather than paraphrasing it, because it is a claim about hidden fees rather than about the existence of a membership.
- 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.