About
Vendor research that answers to buyers, not vendors
Benefits teams are being asked to make eight-figure decisions about a drug class that barely existed five years ago, using materials written by the people selling it. We exist to close that gap.
Why this exists
Every benefits leader evaluating GLP-1 coverage runs into the same problem. The vendors are well-funded and well-prepared. Their decks are excellent. Their outcome figures are impressive, and almost never comparable to each other. The one question that matters most — what does this actually cost us over three years, and what do we get for it — is the question none of the materials answer.
Meanwhile the analyst coverage that does exist is largely sponsored, and the consultants who know this market best are frequently paid by the vendors they recommend. That is not a conspiracy; it is just how the incentives are arranged. But it leaves the buyer without a single source they can read skeptically and still trust.
What we do differently
We publish our rubric before we score anyone, and we apply the same weights to every vendor. We grade the quality of a vendor’s evidence, not just the size of its headline number, because a peer-reviewed trial and a figure on a slide are not the same kind of claim. And we say plainly when a vendor’s commercial incentives point away from what a self-insured employer needs — several of the vendors we rate well have exactly that problem.
We also refuse a category of revenue that most comparison sites depend on. No vendor pays us for placement, rank, inclusion, or coverage, and we take no affiliate commission or referral fee on any vendor in the directory. That constraint costs us money and is the entire reason the research is worth reading.
Who this is for
Benefits and total rewards leaders at self-insured employers. Benefits consultants and brokers doing vendor diligence for clients. Finance partners who have to underwrite the spend. Health plan and TPA teams building their own point-solution strategy.
It is not written for patients. Nothing here is medical advice, and the framing throughout assumes a reader deciding what to buy for a population rather than what to take.
How we make money
Advisory engagements with buyers — helping benefits teams run diligence, structure an RFP, and pressure-test vendor proposals — and paid subscriptions to deeper research. Both are paid by the buy side. Neither gives anyone influence over a score.
Coverage today
Our commitments
- No vendor pays for placement, rank, or coverage.
- No affiliate or referral revenue from any rated vendor.
- Weights published before scoring, applied uniformly.
- Vendors get right of reply on facts, never on scores.
- Errors of fact corrected promptly and dated on the page.
Working with us
Send your population profile and current stack. We will tell you which vendors are worth an RFP and which questions will separate them.
Start here
Three ways in
Depending on where you are in the cycle.
Still deciding whether to cover
The strategy guide walks the decision framework and the three numbers that determine the answer.
Comparing vendors
The directory scores every vendor on the same rubric, with commercial terms side by side.
Building the business case
The cost model runs three-year net spend against your own census and assumptions.