Our Ranking Methodology, Explained: How We Actually Score Providers
Most "best GLP-1 provider" content doesn't explain how the ranking was actually determined. Here's exactly how we score providers — the criteria, the weighting, and what we deliberately don't factor in.
What we score
| Factor | What We Check |
|---|---|
| Pricing transparency | Is real dose-level pricing shown, or only a "starting at" figure? |
| Clinical oversight | Is there documented, individualized clinician review, not just automated approval? |
| FDA status disclosure | Is compounded vs. brand-name clearly labeled, with FDA warning letters disclosed? |
| Cancellation and refund terms | Are terms clear and reasonable, or buried and restrictive? |
| State availability | How many states can actually be served? |
What we deliberately don't factor in
Commission rate has zero weight in our scoring — a provider paying us more doesn't rank higher for that reason. We disclose this plainly because it's the single most common way comparison sites mislead readers: presenting a paid placement as an objective "best" recommendation.
How rankings get updated
We revisit rankings on an ongoing basis as pricing, policies, and regulatory status change — a provider that ranked well six months ago isn't guaranteed to hold that position if something material has shifted.
Embody From $149
Ranks well against our published criteria, not because of commission rate.
Visit Embody →Paid linkWhy we publish this at all
Most comparison sites don't disclose methodology because doing so invites scrutiny of their rankings. We publish ours because we think a ranking you can actually audit is more useful than one you have to take on faith.