Editorial methodology

How we choose featured affiliate partners

The providers featured on our commercial recommendation surfaces are a disclosed affiliate shortlist, not a methodology-sorted ranking. The list can contain fewer than five programs when current evidence makes a previous placement indefensible. This page explains the difference and the eligibility rules underneath each placement.

Two lists, two different jobs

We publish two ordered lists of GLP-1 telehealth providers, and we keep them clearly separate so readers can tell which is which:

  1. The 2026 Provider Rankings (the full table on our homepage and at /) is methodology-sorted. Each provider receives a score computed from a five-axis rubric:
    • Cost & pricing transparency (25%)
    • Clinical support quality (25%)
    • Medication options (20%)
    • User experience (15%)
    • Insurance & accessibility (15%)

    The ranking is the order of those scores, descending. The full rubric and evidence behind each score live in our editorial policy and a public scoring registry in the repo.

    Affiliate status never affects the methodology score. That integrity firewall is enforced in the build itself: a script recomputes every score from evidence flags and fails the build if a verified provider drifts from its computed score.

  2. Featured affiliate partners (the commercial cards on the homepage) are editorial and commercial, not methodology-sorted. Only providers that remain eligible under the current evidence can appear, so the number of placements is allowed to shrink.

A reader gets both: the curated shortlist for “just tell me what to look at first” intent, and the full methodology table for “show me the data so I can decide for myself” intent.

Every featured partner also appears in the full ranking at its score-earned position. A commercial placement never moves it up the objective methodology table.

How we curate featured placements

Every placement must clear all of these criteria. If new evidence makes a provider unsafe or misleading to promote, it leaves the list regardless of payout or conversion history.

  • No disqualifying current evidence. An unresolved regulatory action, a corroborated systemic fulfillment pattern, or another material reader-risk finding can remove a provider immediately. Score and revenue cannot override that evidence.
  • Active affiliate partner on the Katalys network. We're honest that this is a list optimized for active monetization. We label it as such and disclose it on every page.
  • Price and product claims we can describe honestly. Introductory rates, plan commitments, medication-only figures, and unresolved totals must be labeled as such. A low headline never becomes an all-in promise merely because the provider is a partner.
  • A defensible niche or differentiator. If a provider doesn't serve a distinguishable use case (cash-pay flat-rate, insurance-friendly, oral GLP-1, etc.), they're a duplicate of a stronger pick and don't earn the slot.
  • Re-evaluated when evidence changes. Price drift, complaint patterns, regulatory actions, fulfillment failures, or product changes can remove a placement before any scheduled review. We do not add a weaker replacement just to restore a card count.

What earns a slot vs. what doesn't

What can affect commercial order: measured conversion performance and payout, but only among providers that already clear the evidence rules above.

That is the legitimate place for affiliate economics to play a role: ordering a plainly labeled commercial shortlist after editorial eligibility has been established.

What doesn't: a higher affiliate payout cannot rescue a provider with disqualifying evidence, and it never moves a provider up the methodology score. Two different lists, two different rules.

Current featured affiliate placements

  • Embody (review)· Score 7.3 / 10 · from $69/mo · Affiliate partner
    People who want to compare Embody's published plan menu with its separate monthly promotion and will confirm the exact charge, term and refund rules before paying
  • Gala (review)· Score 7.2 / 10 · from $149/mo · Affiliate partner
    Patients comparing Gala's $149/mo microdose on its 3-month promotional offer with the $179/mo yearly all-doses plan, and who will use its free companion app for progress logging
  • Ro (review)· Score 7.2 / 10 · $149/mo membership + medication · Affiliate partner
    Users who want FDA-approved brand-name GLP-1 access including the new Foundayo (orforglipron) oral pill, with direct insurance billing
  • Fridays (review)· Score 8.7 / 10 · from $117/mo · Affiliate partner
    Users who want a holistic program with coaching, nutrition support, and flexible pricing

Disclosures

We earn commissions on sign-ups to the providers above. Revenue can order eligible commercial placements, but it cannot change a score, an objective rank, or the evidence threshold for appearing here. Read the full affiliate disclosure and editorial policy for the integrity firewall in detail.

Where to go next

Ready to pick a provider? Take our 2-minute match quiz, compare the cheapest GLP-1 options, or browse the full best GLP-1 providers for 2026.

Featured Partners

Four affiliate partners we feature, we may earn a commission.

Embody

7.3/10
from $69/mo·Compounded

Gala

7.2/10
from $149/mo·Brand & Compounded

Microdose offer on a 3-month subscription. Confirm the full checkout total.

Ro

7.2/10
$149/mo membership + medication·Brand

Fridays

8.7/10
from $117/mo·Brand & Compounded

Annual semaglutide plan with code NYNY12; $279 month-to-month.

Affiliate links, we earn a commission at no extra cost to you. These are featured partners, prioritized by our affiliate economics, not an editorial "best" ranking. The objective ranking (by methodology score) and full methodology are at GLP-1 Picks comparison.