FORM (by GBY) Review: Four Products, Zero Published Prices

The one-sentence version

FORM by GBY lists a genuine longevity/peptide catalog under its Peptides/Longevity category — NAD+ Therapies, Sermorelin Injections, GHK-Cu Cream, Glutathione Injections — and publishes a price for none of the four. No floor, no "from" figure, no ladder. It grades C, 4 points out of 14 — tied for the lowest score here — computed from published terms alone.

What it is, and who it's for

FORM markets a broad telehealth catalog spanning GLP-1 weight loss and a separate Peptides/Longevity vertical. The longevity line is real and live: NAD+ Therapies, Sermorelin Injections, GHK-Cu Cream and Glutathione Injections are all listed as products, not teased as coming soon. Both LegitScript and HIPAA compliance badges are displayed, and the site states coverage across 48 states plus DC, excluding Alaska and Mississippi.

The buyer this suits is someone already sold on FORM's brand who is willing to start an intake to find out what any of the four products costs. The buyer it does not suit is anyone trying to comparison-shop from the outside, because there is nothing to compare.

What it actually costs

No price is published anywhere for NAD+, sermorelin, GHK-Cu cream, or glutathione injections. The Peptides/Longevity category page and each product listing carry no figure¹. FORM's only published prices belong to its separate GLP-1 line — compounded semaglutide at $299/month, and a $95/month figure that is a membership fee, not a drug cost, and has no bearing on what the longevity products cost.

That gap is the entire case for scoring FORM at zero on price transparency. Our rubric asks for one all-in figure, visible before a reader commits — CeliaRx publishes one per fill, Nolu publishes a floor, and FORM publishes nothing at all for the four products this site actually ranks on. Compare the FORM entry itself against Nolu, which at least states a starting number even without a dose breakdown: FORM does not clear that lower bar either.

Clinical oversight and the pharmacy

No medical director, individual prescriber, or compounding pharmacy is named anywhere on FORM's site for the NAD+, sermorelin, GHK-Cu, or glutathione lines. This ranking scores an unstated fact as unstated rather than assumed favorable, the same standard applied to every provider we grade — so both clinical oversight and pharmacy disclosure score zero here, not because FORM is doing something wrong, but because nothing is published to credit.

The evidence behind what it sells

FORM's marketing does not make cognition-specific claims for its longevity line, and it publishes no evidence summary of its own for the four products. The research picture is the same whoever sells them: NAD+ and sermorelin raise their target levels without proven effects on how people age, and GHK-Cu's case for tissue repair rests mostly on laboratory work. What the studies show is in NAD+ for longevity, sermorelin for longevity and peptides for longevity.

Where it's weak, and who should skip it

Skip it if you want to know what anything costs before you start an intake — that information does not exist on the public site for any of the four products in this category. If you proceed anyway, get the price for your specific product in writing before submitting payment information, and confirm the state-availability list for the product you want, since FORM's stated exclusions (Alaska, Mississippi) apply to the wider catalog and may not be product-specific.

The verdict, against the rubric

Our rubric scores five things out of fourteen: price transparency (4), a genuine longevity line (4), clinical oversight (2), pharmacy disclosure (2) and human support (2). FORM takes the full four for a genuine, live NAD+/peptide catalog — the products are real — and zero everywhere else: zero on price transparency, because none of the four carries a published figure; zero on clinical oversight and zero on pharmacy, because neither is named or described anywhere on the site; zero on human support, which is not stated as included. Four of fourteen: a C, tied for the lowest score here. Two similar providers are covered in our EdgeRx review and Nolu review; the full field is at our provider rankings.