Lumora organizes its catalog by medication and by condition, which is a reader-friendly structure, and then publishes no figure for either peptide it sells.
What Lumora charges
Lumora does not publish a price today.
Lumora also sells 2 compounds this site boards without publishing a price for them: Glutathione and PT-141.
Lumora is not a paid partner; this link may earn a commission if that changes. Full disclosure.
By Nora Castellan, Standards EditorUpdated September 2026
A catalog arranged around the reader, not the bundle
The site runs a page per medication and a page per condition. A reader can arrive knowing the compound they want or only the goal they have, and land somewhere sensible either way.
That beats the bundled plan grid most sellers on this roster use, where compounds disappear into tiers and the compound a reader came for is never priced on its own.
The structure routes toward a condition assessment rather than a cart. The seller is asking a reader to be evaluated before buying, which is consistent with what it sells.
The medication page carries no price
The glutathione medication page was read in full and carries no figure. Neither peptide on this seller's roster is priced anywhere on the public site.
The only figure published anywhere sits inside a liability clause in the terms. That is a legal limit, not a price, and it tells a reader nothing about cost.
So the assessment is where the number arrives. A reader comparing this seller against another before contact has nothing on the page to compare.
The brand name and the legal name do not match
The operating company is named on the terms, the privacy policy and a separate data-privacy page. Three legal pages naming the same operator is a real disclosure.
The name they publish shares no words with the brand, so a reader searching the brand will not find the company without being told. The site does tell them.
The terms then print two different versions of that legal name, one with a two-letter suffix and one without. Both are published today, and neither is treated here as the correct one.
What the site does not publish
No page lists the states the seller covers, so eligibility is a question for the assessment rather than something a reader can check first.
The dispensing pharmacy is not named, and nothing describes lab work as included in what the seller charges.
A separate data-privacy page beyond the standard policy is a better-than-average disclosure. It does not offset the absence of a price, a state list or a pharmacy.
Who it's for
Readers who shop by condition rather than by compound name.
Buyers who expect a clinical assessment before a number.
Anyone who wants the operating company named on more than one legal page.
People who want a data-privacy page beyond a boilerplate privacy policy.
Who should look elsewhere
Anyone who wants a figure on the medication page before making contact.
Readers who want the brand and the operating company to be traceable to each other without a footnote.
Buyers who need the dispensing pharmacy named.
Shoppers who need their own state confirmed on the public site.
Strengths
Organizes its catalog by medication and by condition rather than by marketing bundle
Names its operating company on three separate legal pages
Routes a reader into a condition assessment rather than straight to a cart
Publishes a separate data-privacy page beyond the standard privacy policy
Trade-offs
Publishes no figure on the medication page for the peptide it sells
Its brand name and legal name share no words, and the terms print two variants of the legal name
Publishes no state list and names no dispensing pharmacy
Describes no lab work as included in what it charges
How we verified this
Read the glutathione medication page in full and recorded that it carries no figure.
Read the terms, the privacy policy and the separate data-privacy page for the operating company name.
Recorded both spellings of the legal name that the terms page publishes, and left the difference between them unresolved.
Confirmed that the only figure published anywhere on the site is a liability limit inside the terms rather than a price.
Checked whether any page publishes a state list, names a dispensing pharmacy, or describes lab work as included.
A provider to compare Lumora against
Trellis Vitality
Trellis Vitality frames its program around body-composition tracking rather than scale weight, pairing NAD+, glutathione and tesamorelin with at-home biomarker panels and a 90-day re-test, and names its dispensing pharmacy, VialsRX in Houston, by address.
The medication page does not say. No figure appears on it, and the only number published anywhere on the site is a liability limit inside the terms.
Who operates the brand?
A limited liability company named on three separate legal pages. Its name shares no words with the brand, and the terms print two versions of it, one with a two-letter suffix and one without.
Which of the two company names is correct?
The site publishes both on the same page and does not say. This review records the conflict rather than picking the version that looks more official.
How do I find out what it costs?
Through the condition assessment the site routes you into. Nothing on the public pages narrows the range before that.
Lumora is not a paid partner; this link may earn a commission if that changes. Full disclosure.