This site earns money when you click an affiliate link and sign up for a GLP-1 telehealth platform. That's a conflict of interest. We don't pretend it isn't. What we do is build systems that prevent the conflict from determining the editorial output. Here's how — in full.
Our evaluation process
Step 1: Identification
We identify GLP-1 telehealth platforms through four channels: affiliate network listings (Katalys/RevOffers is our primary network), reader submissions (via our contact form), competitive monitoring (new platforms entering the market), and regulatory filings (FDA warning letters, state pharmacy board actions, and FTC complaints sometimes surface platforms we haven't encountered through other channels).
Identification doesn't mean recommendation. It means the platform enters our evaluation pipeline.
Step 2: Regulatory baseline check
Before we ever enroll in a platform, we run the regulatory checks:
FDA Warning Letter database. Has the company or its pharmacy received an FDA warning letter? If so, has it responded and resolved the violation?
State pharmacy board verification. Is the compounding pharmacy (if identified) licensed and in good standing? Does it hold nonresident licenses in shipping states?
State medical board check. Are the named clinicians (if identified) actively licensed? Any disciplinary actions?
LegitScript status. Is the platform and/or pharmacy LegitScript certified?
FTC and state AG complaints. Any pending enforcement actions related to auto-renewal, cancellation, or deceptive marketing?
Platforms with unresolved FDA warning letters, revoked pharmacy licenses, or active enforcement actions are excluded from recommendation regardless of other factors.
Step 3: Enrollment testing
We enroll in the platform as a patient. We complete the intake process, interact with the clinical and support teams, and evaluate the experience against our 20-point checklist. We assess intake thoroughness (are contraindications properly screened?), clinician interaction quality (does a real clinician review the case, or is it rubber-stamped?), transparency (is the pharmacy named? are costs disclosed before checkout?), and support responsiveness (how fast does the platform respond to clinical and billing questions?).
We do not disclose our identity as reviewers during the enrollment process. The experience we evaluate is the experience any patient would receive.
Step 4: Scoring
Each platform is scored against our 20-point checklist (published separately). The score determines the platform's tier: Recommended (16+ with no critical failures), Conditional (12-15), or Not Recommended (below 12 or any critical failure). The scoring is binary per point — no partial credit, no subjective weighting.
Step 5: Publication and ongoing monitoring
Platforms that meet our recommendation threshold are added to our Watchlist with their scores, strengths, weaknesses, and the date of last evaluation. We re-evaluate platforms quarterly or when triggered by a material change: an FDA warning letter, a pharmacy board action, a significant pricing change, or a reader-reported issue that warrants investigation.
How we handle the affiliate conflict
Let's be specific about the tension. We earn a commission when you click a link on our site and enroll in a GLP-1 platform. The commission varies by platform — some pay $125, some pay $500. The financial incentive is to recommend the platforms that pay the most, regardless of quality. We don't do that. Here's how we enforce the separation:
Commission rates do not influence rankings. Our Watchlist is ordered by checklist score, not by CPA (cost per acquisition). A platform paying $500 in commission is ranked below a platform paying $125 if the $125 platform scores higher on our checklist. This is verifiable: compare our Watchlist order against the publicly available commission rates on affiliate network platforms.
We recommend platforms we don't earn from. Our coverage includes Sesame Care (brand-name path), LillyDirect (direct manufacturer), and general guidance pointing readers to their own PCP or insurance channels when those are the best option. None of these generate affiliate revenue for us. If the best answer for a reader is "go to your doctor," we say that.
We cover platforms with affiliate relationships and platforms without. Platforms that are not in our affiliate network are still evaluated and, if they meet our standards, can be featured in editorial content without affiliate links. We prefer having the affiliate relationship because it funds this publication — but we won't exclude a good platform because it doesn't pay us, and we won't include a bad one because it does.
FDA Warning Letter disclosure is non-negotiable. Platforms in our affiliate network that have received FDA warning letters are disclosed with a visible banner on every appearance. We do not hide warning letters to protect affiliate revenue. The disclosure appears regardless of whether the platform is a high-paying partner.
What we don't do
We don't accept payment for reviews. No platform can pay to be reviewed, pay for a higher score, or pay for removal of negative coverage.
We don't fabricate testimonials or data. Every claim on this site is either sourced from a public regulatory database, based on our direct enrollment testing, or attributed to a reader report. We don't make up patient stories, review counts, or satisfaction statistics.
We don't suppress negative information about affiliate partners. An FDA warning letter is an FDA warning letter whether the platform pays us $500 or $0. Pharmacy board actions, reader complaints, and clinical concerns are published regardless of affiliate status.
We don't guarantee outcomes. We don't claim that any platform will produce specific weight loss results. Individual results depend on medical factors we can't assess. Our evaluation covers platform legitimacy, clinical standards, and consumer protection — not clinical efficacy predictions.
Our update cadence
The Watchlist is updated quarterly. Articles are updated when triggered by material changes. Pricing information is verified monthly. FDA warning letter monitoring is continuous. Reader-reported issues are investigated within 48 hours of submission.
The date at the top of every article and Watchlist entry reflects the last substantive update — not the original publication date. If information on our site is outdated, it's a failure we want to know about. Report it through the contact form and we'll prioritize the update.
Why we publish this
Every comparison site in GLP-1 telehealth has a financial relationship with the platforms it covers. Most don't disclose the specifics. We think the only way to earn trust in an inherently conflicted space is to explain exactly how the conflict works, show exactly how we manage it, and invite readers to hold us accountable when we fail.
This methodology page is a living document. It will be updated as our processes evolve, as new regulatory developments change the evaluation landscape, and as reader feedback identifies gaps we hadn't considered. The current version reflects our practices as of July 2026.
If you have questions about our methodology, our affiliate relationships, or any specific platform evaluation, contact us directly. We answer every email.