Oak vs Ageless: Which GLP-1 Clinic Is Better in 2026?
Summarize this page with
Short answer
Oak wins overall, scoring 7.7/10 vs 6.0/10 — mainly on transparency and price & value.
Oak
A low-priced, longevity-minded option — compounded semaglutide from $119/mo and tirzepatide from $199/mo, after an async licensed-provider review, with free shipping, health coaching and optional NAD+/peptide add-ons.
from $119/mo
Visit OakAgeless
Three GLP-1 formats including an oral option — undercut by an open FDA letter against the same legal entity that operates its own pricing page, and a refund policy that reprices rather than prorates.
from $199/mo
Visit AgelessOak vs Ageless, side by side
| Feature | Oak | Ageless |
|---|---|---|
| Our score | 7.7/10 | 6.0/10 |
| Starting price | $119/mo | $199/mo |
| Medication types | compounded semaglutide, compounded tirzepatide, oral, NAD+ | compounded semaglutide + B12 injection, compounded tirzepatide + B12 injection, tirzepatide oral drops |
| Best for | — | — |
| Overall ranking | #5 | #34 |
| Price & Value (25%) | 8.5 | 6.5 |
| Clinical Oversight (30%) | 7.5 | 6.5 |
| Medication Options (20%) | 8.0 | 7.0 |
| Transparency (25%) | 7.0 | 4.0 |
Sources: Oak pricing verified on oaklovesyou.com, Ageless pricing verified on tryageless.com
Pros & cons
Oak
Pros
- + One of the cheapest entries we track ($119/mo semaglutide)
- + Needle-free oral route plus NAD+ and longevity add-ons
- + Licensed-provider review (no video call), free shipping, no subscription lock-in
Cons
- − Weaker on Transparency (7.0/10)
- − Weaker on Clinical Oversight (7.5/10)
- − Weaker on Medication Options (8.0/10)
Ageless
Pros
- + Oral tirzepatide drops available, not just injectable
- + Four commitment tiers published openly, cheapest at $199/mo yearly
- + Licensed-clinician intake described, though credential type isn't specified
Cons
- − Weaker on Transparency (4.0/10)
- − Weaker on Price & Value (6.5/10)
- − Weaker on Clinical Oversight (6.5/10)
The bottom line
After scoring all 37 clinics on our 4-criterion rubric (price & value, clinical oversight, medication options and transparency), Oak (7.7/10) comes out ahead of Ageless (6.0/10) — but the right choice still depends on what matters most to you.
Choose Oak if you want this option — from $119/mo.
Visit Oak →Choose Ageless if you want this option — from $199/mo.
Visit Ageless →Editor's overall pick
Not sold on either? Our highest-rated clinic overall is Wellorithm (8.3/10) from $147/mo — read the review →
Ready to start GLP-1 weight loss?
Our verdict for this matchup is Oak.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Oak or Ageless?
Oak scores higher overall (7.7/10 vs 6.0/10) and is our recommended pick for most people. Oak also has the lower starting price at $119/mo.
How much does Oak cost vs Ageless?
Oak is from $119/mo and Ageless is from $199/mo. Both are typically cash-pay; HSA/FSA funds are often eligible. We run an automated check against each clinic's own live pricing page every week; a price left unconfirmed for 45 days shows as unverified rather than staying marked as current.
What is the difference between Oak and Ageless?
Oak (7.7/10, #5 of 37) and Ageless (6.0/10, #34 of 37) are scored independently across our 4 criteria: price & value, clinical oversight, medication options and transparency. See the detailed score breakdown above for the criterion-by-criterion comparison.
Does Oak or Ageless take insurance?
Neither Oak nor Ageless typically accepts insurance for GLP-1 weight-loss treatment. Both operate on a cash-pay model, though HSA and FSA funds are often eligible. Confirm at checkout.
Related comparisons
Top picks
We email you when a price we track changes.
No spam, no daily digest — just the clinics you're comparing, when their verified price moves.
How we score: every clinic is rated on five weighted criteria from documented evidence. Prices checked weekly— see each review for that clinic's own verification status. Scores are never influenced by affiliate commissions. “Visit”/“Try” links may be affiliate links that support our work. Educational information only — not medical advice.