Editorial Scaffolding

How HormoneScore works

The exact formula behind our brand scoring. 8 weighted axes summing to 100. Published methodology. No paid placement.

Our editorial trust signals

8.5/10
  • Transparency9.0/10

    Methodology + weights published publicly.

  • Methodology rigor8.5/10

    Composite of 8 weighted axes summing to 100 with published thresholds.

  • Sources cited8.0/10

    Outcome stats require verifiable source URLs.

  • Editorial rigor9.0/10

    Every brand editorially reviewed against primary sources and provider disclosures.

  • Conflict disclosure8.0/10

    Affiliate disclosure on every page. Scoring unaffected by revenue.

Every brand reviewed here gets a 0-100 HormoneScore composite. It's the only metric we publish that influences ranking. Errors update within 7 days — see corrections log.

100pointsClinical credentials (18%)FDA-approved formulary (14%)Insurance + billing transparency (12%)State coverage (10%)Pricing transparency (12%)Patient experience + continuity (10%)Editorial transparency + COI (12%)Independent reviews + reputation (12%)

Going deeper: the dimensions below are a summary. The full 8-axis scoring rubric → documents each axis, scoring bands, and concrete examples per brand.

Eight weighted axes

Total = 100 points. No axis exceeds 20% to prevent single-dimension dominance.

  • Clinical credentials18 pts

    Board certification (ABOM, NAMS-CMP, ABOG), state licensure verification, specialty match to conditions treated, NPI registry confirmation

  • FDA-approved formulary14 pts

    Percent of dispensed medications FDA-approved vs compounded; default formulary policy; compounding pharmacy quality (503A vs 503B)

  • Insurance + billing transparency12 pts

    In-network breadth, prior authorization support, hidden-fee absence, refund + cancellation policy clarity

  • State coverage + compliance10 pts

    States served, async-vs-sync prescribing legality per state, controlled-substance telehealth handling

  • Pricing transparency12 pts

    Itemized cost breakdown published publicly, no surprise billing, pricing matches checkout, HSA/FSA eligibility

  • Patient experience + continuity10 pts

    Same-clinician continuity, async messaging access, initial-visit wait time, response time data

  • Editorial transparency + COI12 pts

    FTC disclosure compliance, conflict-of-interest declarations, source citation density, public correction log

  • Independent reviews + reputation12 pts

    Trustpilot/BBB/Sitejabber/Reddit aggregation (filtered for fake reviews), state medical board record review

Automatic disqualifiers

Any of these = brand cannot appear in ranked lists, regardless of score:

  • Pending FDA Warning Letter (active)
  • DOJ/FTC settlement in past 24 months involving consumer harm
  • State medical board action against ≥3 affiliated providers
  • Regulatory or FTC action involving deceptive or fabricated reviews
  • Refusal to disclose ownership structure
  • No licensed clinician on record (clinic-only model)

What we test ourselves

  • Signup flow — every brand reviewed gets a manual signup test by a real human (not bot/scrape)
  • Time-to-prescription measured from account creation to first script availability
  • Provider message response time over 7-day window
  • Refund process tested on subset (we cancel within 14d to test friction)
  • Pricing screenshots archived monthly — see "Last priced" stamp on each brand page

Update cadence

  • Pricing — refreshed monthly, more often if brand changes pricing midcycle
  • Scores — recomputed quarterly
  • Time-sensitive content (FDA guidance, drug shortages) — within 72 hours of change
  • Corrections — 7-day SLA from report to public update

Conflicts of interest

We accept affiliate commissions from some (not all) brands listed. Commission rates do not affect score or ranking — this is enforced by structural separation: the editor scoring a brand cannot see commission rate data. We also publish non-affiliate alternatives (e.g., Cost Plus Drugs) when they're materially cheaper. See full disclosure on affiliate disclosure.

What would change our mind

  • New peer-reviewed evidence overturning a clinical claim we cite
  • Documented pattern of patient harm (escalating from anecdote to data)
  • Reader-submitted evidence of a fact we got wrong
  • Provider posting publicly-verifiable data we couldn't independently access (we update upward)

How we treat third-party ratings

We do not run our own review-detection algorithm or restate aggregator stars as our own score. Our score is the editorial rubric on this page. Where a brand has public third-party ratings (Trustpilot, Google Business Profile), we cite them to their source so you can judge them directly, and we note their sample size. We downweight a brand in our editorial verdict only when there is documented external evidence of review manipulation — for example a regulatory or FTC action — not on the basis of our own unverifiable analysis.

Source weighting formula

When sources disagree, we weight by source reliability. Higher weight = more influence on final score.

  • FDA labels / peer-reviewed studies weight: 1.0
  • Medical society guidelines (NAMS, ACOG, AACE, ENDO) weight: 0.9
  • Brand-published outcomes data (verified via lookup) weight: 0.7
  • Manual signup test (our staff) weight: 0.8
  • Trustpilot/BBB (post-filter) weight: 0.5
  • Reddit sentiment (post-filter) weight: 0.4
  • Brand marketing copy weight: 0.1

Brand marketing copy gets 0.1 because it's promotional — we don't ignore it, but we anchor heavily to independent data.

Report an error

Found something wrong? Email the editorial team. We respond within 48 hours and publish corrections within 7 days.