A price with nothing behind it, in the good sense
The programme figure carries no plan term, no prepayment condition and no introductory qualifier. What is quoted is what recurs. In a market where most headline numbers turn out to be twelve-month tiers or first-month promotions, that is worth something.
The membership line in its own comparison table reads none, and the shipping line reads free. Those are direct statements about its own terms, which is exactly what a table like that should contain.
The rest of the table is not about it
The other two columns give a monthly cost band for brand-name medications and another for other telehealth companies, plus a membership-fee band for those companies. No company is named and no source is given.
A reader should treat those as advertising, and so should any comparison. This roster holds several sellers well below the band Oak attributes to its rivals, which is what happens when a seller's characterisation of a market meets the market.
Four companies, and which one is this?
Its terms of use names an operating company fifty-one times. Its privacy policy names two holding companies. A third holding company appears alongside. None of them is reconciled with the others, and the site does not say which entity a patient contracts with.
The programme figure is also not scoped to a drug. The page names compounded semaglutide in its own copy and tirzepatide elsewhere, and the price sits against the phrase weight loss programs. No compounding pharmacy, no individual clinician and no service area is published.
Oak's published pricing
| Medication | Price | Verified |
|---|---|---|
| Glp-1 (compounded) | $190/mothe seller's own comparison table and its FAQ both give $190/month as the programme figure; it is not scoped to a drug, though the page names compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide | September 2026source |
compareglp may earn a commission when a reader signs up with a provider through a link on this site. 4 of the 198 providers reviewed here are paid partners today; the other 194 are not. See how this works.
See Oak's current price →Good fit if
- Readers who want one recurring figure with no term and no membership attached.
- Buyers who want the fee position stated as a value in a table rather than as a claim.
- People who want to see how a seller describes its own competitors when it writes the comparison.
Look elsewhere if
- Anyone who would take the competitor bands in its table as market data.
- Readers who need to know which drug the figure buys.
- Buyers who want to know which of four named entities they are contracting with.
- People who need a named pharmacy, a named clinician or a service-area list.
How this review was verified
- Re-read the priced weight-loss page, the privacy policy and the terms of use on 7 September 2026, comparing requested to effective URLs and running a nonsense path against the host in the same run, which returned a 404.
- Counted the occurrences of each corporate name across the legal pages and read them in context, rather than reporting the first match; tracker disclosures for three large technology companies were rejected in the same pass.
- Excluded every competitor figure in the seller's comparison table from all stored values, and recorded them as the seller's own characterisation.
- Stored the programme figure against the general GLP-1 category, because the priced page does not scope it to a molecule.
- Screened two of its named entities against FDA's live warning-letter datatable with a positive control and a nonsense negative control in the same invocation; both returned zero matches.