Editorial standards

Our voice

The GLP Report is an editorial publication, not a marketing funnel. We report on the category; we do not cheer for it. When a provider is strong in one dimension and weak in another, both are stated plainly. If our coverage of a provider reads like an ad, we have failed and want to hear about it.

Ranking methodology

Every provider review carries a verdict score on a 1–5 scale. The overall verdict is weighted from four sub-scores:

• Price (30%). Scored on the 12-month true cost — not the month-1 advertised rate. Hidden fees (consult, lab work, shipping, cancellation) count against this score.
• Clinical oversight (25%). Depth and structure of clinical support. Async message-only programs score lower than programs with structured follow-up and dose-adjustment protocols.
• Transparency (25%). How clearly the provider publishes pricing, medication sources, pharmacy partners, and cancellation policies. FDA status of each medication must be clearly labeled.
• Support (20%). Customer support reachability, response times, and aggregated public review scores (Trustpilot, BBB, Reddit sentiment synthesis).

Commission rates are not a scoring input. A partner that pays more does not score higher, and a non-partner is not scored lower for that reason.

Listicle methodology

“Best for” listicles (“Best GLP-1 without insurance,” “Cheapest GLP-1 providers”) use a context-specific scoring rubric published on each listicle. The weights change with the use case — a budget-focused listicle weights price more heavily than the general verdict does — but the criteria are always named and the weights are always shown. You should never have to guess why something is ranked where it is.

Data verification

Pricing and regulatory data are verified at least monthly. Our market-research automation (we call it Cassie) crawls every partner site weekly, comparing published pricing, plan changes, and medication offerings against our stored data. Any change triggers a verification pass and a bumped timestamp on the affected page.

Every page shows a “Last verified” date within the first 200 words. If a page is more than 30 days out of date, the timestamp is shown in amber as a warning that our confidence in the data has decayed.

Sources

Every factual claim is attributable to a primary source. Acceptable primary sources:

• Manufacturer trial data (Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk), cited by trial name (SURMOUNT, STEP)
• Peer-reviewed journals (NEJM, JAMA, Nature, Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism)
• FDA filings, warning letters, and labeling
• Provider-published pricing and policy pages, with URL and retrieval date
• Reputable trade press for market and regulatory news (STAT, Endpoints, FiercePharma)

What we will not do

• Predict any individual reader’s weight-loss outcome. Clinical trial outcomes are reported; personal outcomes are not promised.
• Publish individual testimonials without a signed release and typical-results disclosure. During our first 12 months, no individual testimonials appear at all.
• Use before/after weight-loss imagery. Ever. With or without disclaimers.
• Use AI-generated depictions of doctors, clinicians, or patients.
• Fabricate experience, reviews, or user stories — or write first-person as though we are users of any provider.
• Make cure, treatment, or prevention claims for any disease.

Corrections

When we get something wrong, we correct it. Significant corrections are noted at the bottom of the affected page with the date of the correction. Typo fixes and minor updates are made silently. Rankings and scores that change as a result of new information are updated with a timestamp and a rationale.

Feedback

Tips, corrections, and feedback: editorial@theglpreport.com.