Oak Review: A Real Anti-Aging Line With No Published Price

The one-sentence version

Oak has been filed across this industry as an injectable-only GLP-1 shop with flat dose pricing. That is wrong. Oak runs six live programmes, and two of them are squarely this board's subject: an Anti-Aging programme (NAD+, glutathione, MIC+B12 and metformin) and a sermorelin/tesamorelin programme, with topical NAD+ and copper peptides in a compounded skincare line besides. It also puts the clinician review and ongoing coaching inside the price with no membership fee, which is more than several higher-graded rows manage. What it does not do is publish a price for any of it — every longevity figure is quoted only after the quiz and clinician approval — while the prices it does publish, for GLP-1, come in five mutually inconsistent versions. It grades B, 8 points out of 14, computed from published terms alone and blind to who pays us. Oak is a paid partner here.

What it actually sells

Oak's checkout runs on a commerce platform whose configuration endpoint is served unauthenticated, and it lists six active programmes. Naming them matters, because the public positioning names two:

• •GLP-1 — compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide, with optional compounded B6 or B12
• •Phentermine — oral
• •Anti-Aging — MIC+B12 injections, glutathione, NAD+ and metformin
• •"Semorelin" (spelled that way in Oak's own catalogue) — injectable sermorelin and tesamorelin
• •Erectile dysfunction — sildenafil, tadalafil, Trimix
• •Skin care — tretinoin, adapalene and retinol, peptide and growth-factor topicals including Argireline and GHK-Cu, topical estriol, topical NAD+ and resveratrol, niacinamide, azelaic acid and AHAs

The homepage nav carries the same thing in plain sight: NAD+ & Glutathione, Sermorelin Peptides, Oral Meds, Women's Health, Tadalafil. So the "GLP-1 only" record was never a reading of the catalogue.

Two things are not for sale, whatever else you may read. There is no methylene blue, no TRT or HRT (men's health here is erectile dysfunction), and no BPC-157 or TB-500 — the copper peptides are topical. And the two supplement packs sitting in Oak's catalogue (a "Gut Health Vitamin Pack" and a "Longevity Vitamin Pack" of NMN, AKG, glycine, hyaluronic acid, omega-3 and vitamin D) are both flagged inactive and are not purchasable, so they are not listed anywhere on this site as products.

The price, which is the finding

There isn't one. Every one of the six programmes returns a zero price with "show total price only" set; the per-drug endpoint returns nothing for every product id; the checkout is authenticated. So NAD+, glutathione, MIC+B12, metformin, sermorelin, tesamorelin, phentermine, the ED line and the skincare line have no published price at all. You find out what your programme costs after completing the intake and being approved.

This review does not estimate. There is no honest way to back-solve a sermorelin price from a semaglutide headline, and doing it would put a number on this page that Oak has never quoted for a product it has never priced.

What Oak does publish is the GLP-1 line, five times, differently:

That is one site telling a shopper five things. The hero and the FAQ agree at $119; the metadata that populates a Google result or a shared link says $133; the comparison table on the homepage says $167; the same comparison table on /weight-loss says $190. Anchor on the hero — $119 semaglutide, $185 tirzepatide, "One price · All dosages · No subscriptions" — and know that the spread exists.

Running over the top of all of it: an unpriced "$200 off — new patient offer" and a "Save up to 60% vs. retail pricing" banner, neither with published mechanics.

Why this zeroes the price factor. Our rubric asks for one all-in figure, visible before you commit, that a buyer with no commitment actually pays. For the line this board ranks, no figure exists at any point before commitment; for the line that is priced, five figures exist. This is not the familiar prepay trap — nothing here is a twelve-month rate wearing a monthly label. It is an absence, and our published rubric scores an absence at zero.

What Oak gets right, and it is not nothing

The consultation and the coaching are inside the price. Oak's own comparison table prints "Membership Fees: None" against "$50–$99/mo" for other telehealth. Its FAQ says its programmes come with "no hidden membership fees, no surprise charges, and free shipping." Approval is asynchronous — a written form, no video call required — so there is no visit to bill for. And support is stated as free and ongoing: "Free Health Coaching" runs site-wide, its three-step explainer says "Support is always available for free," and its FAQ says "Oak's Care Team is available throughout your treatment to answer questions, adjust your dose, and support your progress." Those are the four points Oak earns beyond its longevity line, and they are earned on published statements rather than inference.

Oak holds no FDA warning letter. A live search of FDA's warning-letter index for "oaklovesyou", "oak longevity", "Oak Longevity Holdings", "Beluga Health" and the checkout platform returned no company match, in a pass where a known-lettered company came back positive — so the clean result is real and not a broken query.

The four contradictions

1. Four legal entities on one terms page — and two more in the footer. Oak's /terms-of-use carries Oak Longevity Holdings Corp, Oak Longevity Corp and Leaf Longevity Holdings Corp. DBA Oak Longevity, and then a second, separately dated Terms of Use appended below the first naming Oaklovesyou LLC. The homepage footer adds Flow Longevity Holdings Corp and Mito Health Holdings Corp to the SMS consent, and the copyright line says Leaf Longevity Holdings Corp. Which entity you are contracting with is not a question a customer should have to research.

2. The state list is a circular reference to a page that does not exist. One Terms document says Oak provides its services "to 45 states of the U.S." The second says eligibility depends on a "States Where We Currently Operate" list "found in our FAQ." There is no FAQ page. /faq, /faqs, /help, /frequently-asked-questions and /states all return 404, and the sitemap has no FAQ URL. So the authoritative state list points at nothing, and 45 is the only number a reader can act on.

3. The Women's Health tile is wired to the NAD+ intake. The homepage ships a live Women's Health tile whose link opens the Anti-Aging (NAD+/glutathione) questionnaire. There is no women's-health questionnaire in the catalogue at all — and /weight-loss and /start simultaneously label Men's and Women's Health "Coming Soon." A woman clicking a tile marked Women's Health lands in an NAD+ intake, on a site that elsewhere says the product has not launched.

4. "No subscriptions" versus the subscription. The hero says "No subscriptions." The Terms describe a "Subscription fee" that "may change from time to time" and a subscription you can cancel. Both are current.

And two things a buyer should price in. Refunds are a hard no once your prescription reaches the pharmacy — Oak's Terms say the order "can no longer be cancelled and is non-refundable… even if you attempt to stop, hold, reroute, return, or cancel the shipment directly with FedEx" — with AAA binding arbitration and class actions waived. And Oak's own patient counts do not agree with each other: "10,000+ Satisfied Patients" and "Trusted by 5,000+ members" on the homepage, "Trusted by 50,000+" on /product.

Who prescribes, and who fills it

Nobody is named. Oak identifies no medical director, no prescribing clinician and no NPI numbers, and it names no dispensing pharmacy. What it does say, in its FAQ, is: "At Oak, every prescription is reviewed by a board-certified provider and fulfilled through licensed U.S. compounding pharmacies that comply with state and federal pharmacy regulations." That is a description of an unnamed set — the middle case in our pharmacy ladder's own wording — and it scores zero, the same as saying nothing, because it identifies neither a facility nor a compounding standard.

On the certification badge, be precise. Oak's footer renders a LegitScript badge as a local image and links only the LegitScript checker tool. There is no seal ID anywhere in the markup, so there is nothing for a reader to look up and this review makes no claim in either direction about Oak's certification status. Where a provider is certified and publishes its seal ID, we say so and check it — Care Bare Rx and Breeze Meds both do. A badge with no identifier behind it is a graphic.

The evidence behind what it sells

Oak's Anti-Aging programme is four compounds with four different evidence stories, and it is worth separating them.

NAD+. The 2026 PRISMA-guided systematic review screened 113 studies including 33 human intervention trials. Oral precursors reliably raise blood NAD+², but effects on functional, metabolic and vascular outcomes were "heterogeneous and often null or endpoint-specific," and clinical effectiveness for anti-aging or wellness "remains inconclusive"³. No eligible outcomes trial has evaluated injected NAD+ for these indications at all³, which is the route Oak sells. A 2025 meta-analysis in adults averaging over 60 found no improvement in muscle index, grip strength, gait speed or chair-stand time⁴.

Sermorelin and tesamorelin. Both are growth-hormone-releasing analogues. Tesamorelin has real randomised evidence — in HIV-associated excess abdominal fat, where it is an approved indication⁵ — and that is a specific disease population, not healthy aging. For GH augmentation in healthy older adults the honest summary remains the 2007 Annals systematic review: small body-composition changes, no demonstrated functional benefit, more adverse events⁶.

Metformin is the one on the list with a genuine longevity literature behind it, and it is still not settled — the TAME trial has not read out, and the observational case rests on populations with diabetes. Read what metformin's longevity evidence actually shows before treating its presence on a menu as a reason to buy.

All of it is compounded and none of it is FDA-approved for anti-aging; FDA's own position is that compounded drugs are not FDA-approved and it does not verify their safety, effectiveness or quality before they are marketed¹.

Where it's weak, and who should skip it

Skip it if you need to know what something costs before you hand over a medical history, because for everything on the longevity line you cannot. Skip it if you need to confirm your own state, because the document that would tell you resolves to a 404. Skip it if you want to know who is prescribing or who is compounding, because Oak names neither. And skip it if a hard no-refund policy once the pharmacy has your prescription is a risk you will not take.

Consider it if the breadth is what you want — NAD+, glutathione, MIC+B12 and metformin under one intake, with sermorelin and tesamorelin beside them, no membership fee, free coaching and an asynchronous approval — and you are prepared to treat the intake as a quotation request rather than a purchase. Get the programme price, the dose and your state in writing before you agree to anything, and remember that the refund door closes the moment the pharmacy receives the order.

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). Oak takes the full four for its longevity line — an Anti-Aging programme and a sermorelin/tesamorelin programme are exactly what this board exists to rank, and correcting that record is why this row exists at all. It takes two for clinical oversight, because there is no membership and no consult fee anywhere in the published price structure, and two for human support, on free coaching and a care team published as available throughout treatment. It takes zero for price transparency, because nothing on the graded line is priced and the priced line has five prices, and zero for pharmacy, because an unnamed set of "licensed U.S. compounding pharmacies" identifies no facility and states no standard. Eight out of fourteen: a B, at the bottom of the band.

Two changes would move it a long way: publish a price for the Anti-Aging and sermorelin programmes, and put the state list on a page that exists. Neither touches the medicine. The full graded field is at our provider rankings, the scoring is set out in how we grade, and what this category costs generally is in longevity clinic cost.