How We Compare and Rank Longevity Providers

How are providers selected?

Our initial research pool comes from programs visible in Katalys, a partnership platform used by The Compound. We then require current official product and policy sources before publishing a comparison record. That commercial starting pool is a coverage limitation: the publication is not a census of every provider, and being absent does not imply a provider is unavailable or unsuitable.

The directory contains 23 scored provider reviews. A narrower payment table covers 11 providers and 20 sourced injection-plan records; reviews with incomplete payment schedules remain discoverable in the directory. Source checks: September 15, 2026; September 19, 2026; September 22, 2026; September 25, 2026; September 26, 2026; October 5, 2026; October 8, 2026; October 9, 2026; October 13, 2026; October 27, 2026. No application or commission is required for inclusion. Current relationship status.

What determines a recommendation or table order?

Tables use provider-name order unless a clearly labeled, genuinely comparable metric supports another order. We do not numerically rank a first-month promotion against an annual-plan average. Supplied quantities are not fully verified across this set, so the site does not claim a lowest cost per equivalent dose.

Editorial fit descriptions use specific facts: an explicit renewal schedule, a shorter entry term, a disclosed introductory and later rate, or stated care inclusions. They always include the tradeoff. The separate public-information score measures five disclosed-information checks. It does not determine price order, medical efficacy, a paid top spot or a patient outcome rating.

How do the provider information scores work?

Every reviewed provider receives a public-information score out of 10. Five equally weighted checks contribute 0, 1 or 2 points each: not established, partial or clear. We judge information a shopper can reasonably check before enrolling in the reviewed NAD+ or sermorelin offers. The same rules apply to every provider, regardless of affiliate status or commission.

The score covers disclosure, not medical effectiveness, clinical safety, value for money or patient satisfaction. “Not established” means our reviewed sources did not settle the question; it does not prove the provider never discloses it. Where a review covers more than one product, a material gap in one product prevents full credit for the affected check. Each rationale identifies the gap and the sources behind our judgment.

Individualized doses, monitoring and clinician or pharmacy assignments may be settled during care. We do not require those patient-specific details before intake. We also do not deduct points merely because optional or individualized services might cost extra. A published mandatory charge, unclear commitment or conflicting policy still affects the relevant check; silence about an optional cost is not proof that it is free.

Product detail0 to 2 points

0: No relevant treatment or product is established.

1: A relevant treatment is described, but the exact compound or route remains ambiguous.

2: The specific compound and route are identifiable for every core offer reviewed; quantity gaps remain separate limitations.

Price and payment0 to 2 points

0: No usable public price was established.

1: A price is public, but a material initial charge, renewal, commitment or known required fee remains unresolved.

2: The selected initial commitment, later billing amount and cadence, and known mandatory fees are clear. Optional or individualized costs are identified separately.

Care process0 to 2 points

0: No usable assessment process was established.

1: Clinician assessment is described, but ongoing clinical contact or follow-up is not explained.

2: Clinician eligibility assessment and ongoing clinical contact or follow-up are explained; an assigned clinician or fixed monitoring schedule need not be public before intake.

Pharmacy disclosure0 to 2 points

0: No usable pharmacy information was established.

1: US licensed or registered pharmacy fulfillment is explicitly described, or a pharmacy network is named without an assignment explanation. These are disclosures, not verified licenses.

2: A relevant dispensing pharmacy is named, a relevant named network explains variable assignment, or patients can choose their pharmacy. Individual licenses and product quality are not certified.

Cancellation and refunds0 to 2 points

0: No usable cancellation or refund policy was established.

1: Some terms are available, but a material cancellation or refund condition, applicable scope or policy conflict remains unresolved.

2: The applicable cancellation method, timing or processing stage, and refund conditions are clear and consistent. Strict refunds or prepayment do not reduce the score.

A strict but clearly disclosed refund policy can earn full policy credit. Prepayment is not itself a deduction if the commitment and billing schedule are clear. A pharmacy network can receive full disclosure credit when its relationship to the reviewed product and any assignment process are explained. Naming a pharmacy does not establish its licensing, product quality or suitability for an individual.

The point thresholds are our editorial judgment. For practical checks before treatment, HHS advises asking about the cost of a telehealth visit. FDA advises checking that an online pharmacy requires a prescription, has a US address and phone number, provides access to a licensed pharmacist and is licensed by a state board of pharmacy. These checks concern the actual service and dispensing pharmacy; a high score does not verify them for you.

Each review exposes its criterion scores, rationale, original source-review date and direct sources so readers can inspect the judgment. A new scoring date does not imply that every source was fetched again. Where evidence is missing or contradictory, we keep the uncertainty visible.

The provider directory remains alphabetical, and price comparisons keep their stated ordering. A higher information score is a reason to inspect a clearer offer; it is not a recommendation to use a treatment or a promise of better care.

How are prices and payment windows calculated?

Each record keeps advertised price, initial term payment, repeating charge, billing interval, required fees and minimum-payment information separate. A four-week plan is 28 days and a twelve-week term is 84 days. We do not turn a vial quantity into a treatment duration by inventing a dose.

The payment explorer includes the first payment date and excludes the date at the end of the selected window. It assumes continuing enrollment. Unknown necessary inputs suppress the complete total, even when some payment events can be shown. The explorer and source notes make those assumptions inspectable.

How do you assess evidence and safety claims?

We prefer regulator documents and original human research, keep route and population boundaries visible, and distinguish a biological mechanism from a demonstrated clinical benefit. Our launch evidence packet is a bounded review of selected primary sources, not a systematic review of every study.

Compounded drugs are not FDA-approved, and historic approval of a different finished product does not transfer to them. FDA: risks of compounded drugs We do not diagnose, recommend doses, verify individual suitability or claim a clinical reviewer has assessed these pages.

How should sources and prices be used or cited?

Longevity Ranked compares dated public information, not patient outcomes. The source supporting a statement must match the exact product, route, population and question. A provider's sales page, a regulator's notice and a human study establish different things.

Product and policy pages: these establish what the provider publishes about the selected offer, price, care, pharmacy or contract. They are not independent proof of clinical effectiveness, current checkout terms or a license audit. Each review links the original pages and identifies conflicts.
Regulatory records: retain the named product, action and scope. Historical approval of another finished product does not approve a current compounded offer. An FDA warning about one service or claim must not be generalized to every product a provider sells. FDA: risks of compounded drugs
Human research: retain the formulation, administration route, participants, measured outcome and study limits. The NAD+ IV pilot cited in our guides does not establish results for at-home injections, nasal spray or oral products. Grant et al.: human NAD+ IV pilot (2019) The injection-versus-IV comparison explains that boundary.
Prices and calculations: name the provider, product, route, selected plan and source-check date. Keep the advertised rate, initial payment, renewal interval, commitment and required costs distinct. Preserve unverified fields; a monthly average is not necessarily the first bill, and a vial quantity is not a treatment duration.

The source-linked plan snapshot (CSV) includes NAD+ and sermorelin records with their own dates, official sources, conditions and unknowns. It is a bounded injection-plan dataset, not the whole provider directory or a complete market survey. Its prices do not establish equivalent doses or better health outcomes. The NAD+ cost guide and sermorelin cost guide explain how those billing distinctions affect a purchase.

For attribution, link the relevant Longevity Ranked page and retain its qualification, then use its original source to check the underlying statement. Source-check dates are observations, not a promise that prices or policies remain unchanged. Send a current official source with any correction.

Do you test products or verify every license?

No. This release is a public-source and contract audit. We have not ordered medication, run laboratory tests, conducted mystery-patient assessments or independently audited all clinician and pharmacy licenses. A disclosed pharmacy network is recorded as a provider statement, not converted into a quality certification.

Each provider review shows the actual source trail and unresolved questions:

How are updates and corrections handled?

Material facts display the date we checked their sources; that date is not a guarantee that checkout remains unchanged. When a correction is verified, the affected source record and dependent comparisons should change together. Conflicting documents remain visible until resolved; we do not silently select whichever version makes a provider look best.

Send the page, disputed statement and supporting source. Provider correction requests are evaluated on evidence, not relationship status.