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.
- Clinical reviewers9.0/10
NAMS-certified team on review every brand.
- 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.
Going deeper: the dimensions below are and 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
- Pattern of fake-review allegations with documented evidence
- 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 filter fake reviews
Most aggregator sites quote raw Trustpilot stars. Raw ratings include fake reviews, incentivized reviews, and review-bombing campaigns. Here's our filter pipeline:
- Pull raw data from Trustpilot, BBB, ComplaintsBoard, Sitejabber, Reddit, and Google Business Profile
- Exclude reviews younger than 14 days — too easy for brands to seed before launch
- Exclude reviewer accounts created within 7 days of review — fake-account signal
- Cluster by language patternsusing cosine similarity — flag clusters where 5+ reviews share >80% phrase overlap
- Cross-reference IP geolocation (where available) — flag if non-USA IPs concentrated about brand HQ region
- Weight 5★ reviews 50% lesswhen account history is < 3 distinct reviews
- Reddit sentiment — pull r/Menopause, r/Perimenopause, r/PCOS, r/glp1 for brand mentions; weight by upvote ratio + comment depth
We publish detailed fake-review audits when patterns are egregious. See recent audits.
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.