Publication information
How We Compare and Rank Longevity Providers
Longevity Ranked compares the public facts behind a purchase: exact product, route, advertised rate, first treatment-term payment, renewal, quantity, care, pharmacy information and cancellation. We keep missing fields visible. “Best for” descriptions refer to a specific shopping priority, not a claim that one medicine or provider produces better health outcomes. No commission determines a table's order or our editorial judgment.
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 first release covers 4 providers and 7 verified injection-plan records. 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. There is no invented ten-point score, medical efficacy winner, paid top spot or patient outcome rating.
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.
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.
The Pallas, Luvo, AgelessRx and Embody reviews show 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.