Compare head to head
The comparison grid we would build for a client. Best score in each row is underlined — but read the category first, because comparing a companion vendor to a full-service clinic will mislead you.
Pre-launch data — not source-verified. Scores and pricing are editorial placeholders pending vendor confirmation.
Select up to 3 vendors
2 selected
| Vendor | 8.7 Virta Health Metabolic specialist | 8.4 Omada Health Coaching companion |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Metabolic specialist | Coaching companion |
| Scores | ||
| Clinical rigor | 9.0 | 7.9 |
| Outcomes evidence | 9.3 | 8.8 |
| Cost control | 9.1 | 8.2 |
| Data & reporting | 8.4 | 8.6 |
| Integration | 8.0 | 8.9 |
| Member experience | 7.6 | 8.1 |
| Commercial | ||
| PMPM range | $40–$95 | $32–$58 |
| Pricing model | Outcomes-based — substantial share of fees contingent on clinical results | PMPM on enrolled members, with an engagement floor |
| Performance guarantees | Up to 100% of fees at risk against A1c, weight, and medication-reduction targets | Engagement and weight-loss guarantees; typically 15–25% of fees at risk |
| Minimum lives | 2,000 | 1,000 |
| Term | 36 months | 24 months |
| Termination notice | 120 days | 90 days |
| Clinical | ||
| Prescribes | Yes | No |
| Step therapy | Yes | No |
| Prior authorization | No | No |
| BMI threshold | BMI ≥ 30, or type 2 diabetes / prediabetes at any BMI | BMI ≥ 27 with comorbidity, or ≥ 30 |
| Off-ramp protocol | Deprescribing is the stated clinical goal, with continuous medication-reduction tracking | Structured 12-week taper support with strength programming to defend lean mass |
| Evidence | ||
| Evidence level | Peer-reviewed RCT | Peer-reviewed observational |
| Follow-up | Up to 5 years | 12–24 months |
| Assessment | ||
| Best for | Self-insured employers with a diabetic or prediabetic population and a mandate to bend pharmacy trend downward. | Employers whose PBM already controls GLP-1 access and who need durability and lean-mass protection around it. |
| Watch out | Enrollment is the whole risk. Model your results at realistic uptake, not at the enrolled-member outcomes in the sales deck. | Confirm exactly which fees are at risk and how engagement is defined — the definition moves the guarantee more than the percentage does. |
| Verdict | The highest-conviction pick when your population fits. Nothing else here combines randomized evidence with fees genuinely at risk — but underwrite it on realistic enrollment, not on completer outcomes. | Buy it as a companion, not a solution. Omada will not lower your pharmacy trend on its own, but it is the strongest evidence-backed way to make the spend you are already committed to actually produce durable outcomes. |