Title

Presentation

Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the GoodRx First Quarter 2026 Earnings Call. As a reminder, today’s conference call is being recorded. I would now like to introduce your host for today’s call, Aubrey Reynolds, Director of Investor Relations. Ms. Reynolds, you may begin.

Aubrey Reynolds: Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to GoodRx’ earnings conference call for the first quarter of 2026. Joining me today are Wendy Barnes, our Chief Executive Officer, and Chris McGinnis, our Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, I’d like to remind everyone that this call will contain forward-looking statements. All statements made on this call that do not relate to matters of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding management’s plans, strategies, goals, and objectives, our market opportunity, and our anticipated financial performance. Underlying trends in our business and industry, including ongoing changes in the pharmacy ecosystem, our value proposition, our long-term growth prospects, our direct and hybrid contracting approach, collaborations and partnerships with third parties, including our point-of-sale cash programs and our integrated savings program, our e-commerce strategy, and our capital allocation priorities.

These statements are neither promises nor guarantees but involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other important factors. These factors, including the factors discussed in the Risk Factors section of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, could cause actual results, performance, or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements made on this call. Any such forward-looking statements represent management’s estimates as of the date of this call, and we disclaim any obligation to update these statements even if subsequent events cause our views to change. In addition, we will be referencing certain non-GAAP metrics in today’s remarks.

We have reconciled each non-GAAP metric to the nearest GAAP metric in the company’s earnings press release, which can be found on the overview page of our Investor Relations website, @investors.goodRx.com. I’d also like to remind everyone that a replay of this call will become available there shortly as well. With that, I’ll turn it over to Wendy.

Wendy Barnes: Thank you, Aubrey, and thank you to everyone for joining us today. We delivered a strong first quarter with performance driven by continued momentum across our strategic growth priorities. We are seeing strength in revenue, disciplined execution on profitability, and healthy engagement across the platform. Overall, we feel confident these results validate that the strategy we laid out last quarter is working and that we are building a sustainable value proposition designed to deliver resilient long-term growth. That momentum is coming from the parts of the business we’ve been investing in. Pharma Direct continues to scale, supported by strong demand for manufacturer-sponsored pricing programs and continued momentum in GLP-1 access.

Our subscription offerings, led by GoodRx for weight loss, are growing and driving deeper consumer engagement. Rx Marketplace is delivering performance in line with internal expectations, supported by the continued expansion of our e-commerce footprint and the strength of our direct contracting model. At the same time, the broader health care environment is evolving in ways that align with our strategy and create meaningful opportunities for us to capture additional value. Coverage gaps are widening, out-of-pocket costs remain elevated, more Americans are finding themselves uninsured, and consumers are demanding greater transparency in how medications are priced and accessed. As a result, affordability is becoming a more central factor earlier in the patient journey, with consumers and providers actively evaluating cost before prescribing and filling, pharmaceutical manufacturers accelerating direct-to-consumer strategies, employers looking for new ways to support high-cost therapies, and pharmacies adapting to more transparent, digitally driven models of fulfillment.

As these dynamics evolve, how affordability is presented and experienced by consumers is becoming increasingly important, shaping not just awareness, but whether patients ultimately move forward with treatment. GoodRx is well-positioned to respond to these changes. Over the past several years, we have been focused on evolving our platform from an affordability destination into a true access infrastructure. We have built a digital storefront where consumers can easily understand pricing across generics and brands and access those options through a more integrated experience. At the same time, we have developed the underlying capabilities that allow manufacturers to leverage our platform to deliver self-pay programs directly to consumers at scale.

This is expanding the role GoodRx plays in the prescription journey and positioning us to be at the center of how medications are evaluated, accessed, and filled. With that, I’ll walk through our business updates, starting with Pharma Direct. GoodRx Pharma Direct continues to be a key growth engine for the business. In Q1, Pharma Direct saw 82% growth year-over-year, reflecting the continued expansion of manufacturer-sponsored pricing programs on our platform. We now have more than 125 self-pay programs live, reinforcing the growing role GoodRx plays in enabling modern pharmaceutical access. A key driver of momentum in the quarter was our continued support of highly anticipated GLP-1 launches and expansions. Since the start of the year, we have helped enable access to Ozempic Pill, Wegovy HD, Wegovy Pill, Boundeo, and Zepbound KwikPen.

To provide a sense of the scale we are driving, a third-party source indicates that we accounted for approximately 1/3 of all Wegovy Pill transactions in the first 2 months post-launch. This reinforces the increasingly central role GoodRx plays in helping manufacturers bring therapies directly to the patients who need them with transparent pricing and broad pharmacy access from day 1. Beyond GLP-1s, we are continuing to expand Pharma Direct across therapeutic areas and program types. In the quarter, we announced a collaboration with Viatris to support savings availability for 17 of its established brand medications. We also introduced significant discounts from Pfizer on more than 30 of its essential medications, spanning women’s health, migraine, arthritis, and rare disease, made available through a dedicated Pfizer-branded storefront on GoodRx and on TrumpRx as part of our integration.

As these programs scale, our focus is shifting from launch to how affordability is surfaced and discovered by consumers. In response, we are developing new ways for manufacturers to engage patients on GoodRx. Branded storefronts are a key example, providing a simple, trusted entry point for consumers. Turning to explore a manufacturer’s full portfolio of savings in one place. And when manufacturers leverage GoodRx as a channel, those programs are available across our nationwide pharmacy network, supporting broad consumer choice and convenient access. We believe this model represents a more cohesive and consumer-friendly way to present affordability offerings at scale. We are also seeing encouraging traction from TrumpRx, where GoodRx enables pricing for many of the brands available on the platform.

Early data shows strong demand concentrated in GLP-1 therapies and, importantly, the volume appears to be incremental, expanding access to new patients rather than shifting existing demand. That is a meaningful signal for manufacturers and reinforces the value of transparent pricing delivered through consumer channels. Overall, Pharma Direct is evolving GoodRx beyond the pricing solution into a broader consumer access platform for pharmaceutical manufacturers, enabling them to reach patients directly, convert clinically appropriate demand, and deliver pricing seamlessly at the pharmacy counter. Now diving into the Rx marketplace. In Q1, Rx Marketplace delivered steady prescription transaction performance that was in line with internal expectations, supported by continued operational execution across the business.

Monthly active consumers were flat quarter-over-quarter, reinforcing consistent engagement on the platform. Following the significant expansion of our e-commerce retail network late last year, Q1 performance demonstrated the scalability of our model, with both order volume and total claims more than doubling quarter-over-quarter. As more consumers seek convenient digital ways to access medication, expanding our e-commerce capabilities remains an important part of improving the GoodRx experience and capturing a greater share of the prescription journey. At the same time, we continue to make progress on strategic initiatives designed to strengthen the long-term economics of the marketplace. This includes advancing direct retailer agreements. We have direct contracts in place with 9 of our top 10 retail pharmacies nationwide, and are enhancing our pricing capabilities, including partnerships that enable pharma direct net pricing claims to be delivered directly at the pharmacy counter.

These initiatives improve the consumer experience, create operational efficiencies for retailers, and support healthier marketplace economics over time. Turning to subscriptions, which is a key growth priority for the business. In Q1, our subscription offerings continued to scale, and the number of subscription plans returned to year-over-year growth, driven by purposeful investment, growing consumer adoption, and continued expansion across our condition-specific programs. We are seeing increasing engagement as more consumers choose GoodRx, not just for savings, but as a more integrated way to access and manage their care. GoodRx for weight loss remains the primary driver of momentum within this category. Since our last call, we expanded the platform to support all available FDA-approved GLP-1 therapies, with the Wegovy pill performing particularly well since launching at the start of the year.

More broadly, our weight loss offering continues to demonstrate the value of the integrated experience we are building. By combining clinical care, transparent self-pay pricing, and broad pharmacy availability, we are creating a seamless path for evaluation to therapy initiation, helping consumers easily start and stay on treatment. Beyond weight loss, our ED and hair loss offerings continue to contribute to growth while also demonstrating the broader applicability of our subscription model across additional conditions. Overall, we believe subscriptions are becoming a more meaningful part of how consumers engage with GoodRx and are strengthening our ability to build deeper, more recurring consumer relationships over time. Combined with our Pharma Direct solutions, it also creates a strong foundation to extend our model into the employer channel.

Through GoodRx Employer Direct, self-insured employers can offer manufacturer-sponsored pricing to their employee populations and choose to directly subsidize the amount with employer contributions layered seamlessly on top of the manufacturer’s approved price. This creates a clear, reduced out-of-pocket cost for employees while giving employers a more flexible and predictable way to support high-impact therapies. We are already seeing this model in practice through our work with Eli Lilly and Company on Zepbound KwikPens, which enables employers to subsidize Lilly’s $449 price across all doses. This is a clear example of how pharma direct pricing can be extended into the employer channel without requiring changes to the core benefit structure.

We are also extending our subscription offering into this channel. Employers can offer a customized version of GoodRx for weight loss, integrating clinical care, transparent pricing on FDA-approved therapies, and broad pharmacy availability into a single streamlined experience. This approach allows employers to address coverage gaps without redesigning their core pharmacy benefit while delivering meaningful savings and improved access for employees. I will now turn the call over to Chris to discuss Q1 results.

Christopher McGinnis: Thank you, Wendy, and good morning, everyone. For the first quarter, we delivered revenue of $194 million and adjusted EBITDA of $58.3 million, representing an adjusted EBITDA margin of 30%. Looking at revenue in more detail, prescription transactions revenue was $113.7 million, down 24% year-over-year, reflecting the continued lapping impacts from 2025 as well as the unit economics pressure we previously discussed. Importantly, volume trends stabilized with monthly active consumers flat sequentially at $5.3 million. Pharma Direct revenue grew to $52.2 million, up 82% year-over-year, driven by strong momentum with manufacturer partnerships and continued expansion of our self-pay pricing, specifically with the successful launch of the Wegovy pill.

Pharma Direct delivered consistent sequential growth throughout 2025, which continued into the first quarter of 2026, supporting the year-over-year increase and reflecting the ongoing ramp of our consumer direct pricing offering. Subscription revenue increased 16% year-over-year to $24.4 million, supported by the ongoing adoption of our condition-specific offerings. For the full year 2026, we are raising our guidance and now expect revenue to be in the range of $765 million to $785 million and adjusted EBITDA to be at least $235 million. While we expect continued pressure on prescription transactions revenue in 2026, our increase in guidance is driven primarily by stronger-than-expected performance in Pharma Direct as we continue to build momentum in our consumer direct pricing offering.

Consequently, we now expect Pharma Direct revenue to grow over 50% year-over-year. Subscription revenue is also expected to build throughout the year as our condition-specific programs continue to scale. With that, I will turn the call back over to Wendy.

Wendy Barnes: Thank you, Chris. Q1 was defined by execution, but more importantly, it was a quarter where we saw a clear validation of the strategy we’re executing and the sustainable value proposition, we believe it creates. We delivered strong performance in Pharma Direct, accelerated growth in subscriptions, and stable engagement in the Rx marketplace, reflecting progress against the priorities we outlined coming into the year. Across the business, we are making it easier for consumers to access medications and navigate the prescription journey while creating value for manufacturers, employers, and pharmacy partners. As the market continues to evolve, we believe this positions GoodRx to play a more central role in how patients evaluate affordability and access to treatment.

That momentum gives us confidence in the opportunity ahead, and we remain focused on disciplined execution as we continue to scale the business and drive durable long-term growth. With that, I’ll turn the call over to the operator for questions.

Receive real-time insider trading and news alerts

Operator: [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Michael Cherny of Leerink Partners.

Michael Cherny: Maybe just one quick one first for Chris, so I can understand the change in guidance. It seems that Pharma Direct has gone up, I think this implied subscription has gone up. What is the change in view, if any, on the PTR revenue base that’s embedded in the new guidance?

Christopher McGinnis: Yes. Thank you, Michael, for the question. First of all, prescription transaction revenue met our internal expectations. I know we didn’t guide specifically to it, but I think when you look at the MAC sequentially, it was slightly up-rounded to flat, but slightly up quarter-over-quarter, and then the reflected unit economics that we talked about, I think it was largely in line. Relative to the full-year guidance, I think being down in this 24% range is probably in line with how we thought about it. I would think about the year-over-year full year as about the same. And then obviously, we’re focused on the pharma Direct and the building momentum in our condition-specific subscriptions offering as well.

Michael Cherny: And so that leads me to my, I guess, follow-up second question is on that subscription side. It’s great to see the condition-specific growth playing out. We all know this to be a highly competitive market, with both established and fly-by-night players. As you think about what’s driving your improvement in the subscription base, what do you think it is that GoodRx is doing better, differently, that’s allowing you to drive that improved stability?

Wendy Barnes: Michael, it’s Wendy. I’ll start, and Chris, by all means, chime in if you’ve got additional thoughts. Look, I think it’s a combination of a couple of things. One, our brand recognition and consumer engagement have long positioned us as really the #1 digital drug pricing platform. So, that top-of-funnel connection we already have with consumers is, in fact, strong. And when you tie that and point that back to conversations with pharma, where they look at the connectivity we have with consumers, that absolutely drives an engagement on the brand deals that they want to strike with us, which, of course, then feeds into the success of those subscription offerings. Yes, you’ve got to have exceptional service in those programs, but you’ve also got to have competitive pricing on the drugs that those patients are seeking, in addition to potentially telemedicine.

I would also say our connectivity to a broad and unbiased retail network is a competitive advantage. We are not purposely launching these programs where you’ve got to use a specific home delivery provider. But I would footnote, we’re happy to support home delivery or retail. At the end of the day, it’s really about consumer choice. And so, when you think about those 3 elements, again, our connectivity on brand, NPS with prescribers, in addition to that vast retail network, we believe that is what gives us a competitive advantage and why we’re finding success and also aligns to our reason for investing in the business when we originally outlined that thesis, I think, mid last year. Anything you’d add, Chris?

Christopher McGinnis: Yes. I would say from a financial perspective, Michael, what I’m encouraged by is that we largely started to build momentum on the subscription offering without a lot of marketing dollars pushed in. If you look year-over-year, we’re actually down a little bit from Q1 from a marketing spend perspective. So that is reflective, I think, of Wendy’s point about the volume of consumers that are visiting our platform organically, and we got a lot of tailwinds from that. We’re pushing marketing dollars. I expect to spend more dollars throughout the rest of the year on marketing and specifically towards our condition offerings. So, I think we’re encouraged by the early momentum we’re building, and I think we’ll continue to invest dollars there throughout the year.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Jailendra Singh of Truist.

Payton Engdahl: This is Payton Engdahl on for Jailendra. I wanted to hit on the Surescripts’ partnership you guys announced. It’s been about like 5 months since that partnership was announced. I was wondering if you could provide just an update on that, and also if that had led to any type of outperformance in the quarter.

Wendy Barnes: Yes, I would say nothing material at this point. We remain partnered but continuing to figure out how best to deploy that offering. Not a lot to comment on at this point, but we appreciate the question.

Christopher McGinnis: Yes. From a financial perspective, nothing material and really nothing built into the guide on that either.

Payton Engdahl: And then I also just want to hit really quickly on the ISP. You guys noted some volume reduction in one of your integrated savings programs. Just any color on that, that you could provide. And if this was the same ISP partner that you guys saw last year as well, the same issue. So any color would be helpful.

Christopher McGinnis: Yes. Thanks for the question. And for clarification, there’s no volume reduction in 2026. Anything we’ve referenced is a volume reduction associated with 2025 in the past. So, we are only referencing it as a comp relative to the lapping impact, and the year-over-year impact from the volume that was included in ’25 is not recurring this year. But so far this year, the ISP programs are performing consistently with our expectations, and the volume looks relatively stable.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of John Ransom of Raymond James.

John Ransom: Just a couple for me. This is a little tangential to what you do, but some other players who focus on manufacturers, particularly on the software side, have noticed a pause in their marketing spend, Novo being called out specifically. What behavior, I mean obviously, your numbers didn’t show any of that, but would you call out any changes in behavior as you’re having dialogue with these folks in terms of how they’re thinking about marketing spend and go-to-market, that either is a good guy or a bad guy?

Wendy Barnes: John, good to hear from you. No, we’re actually not seeing any impact. I would say quite the opposite. I mean, having recently returned from Asembia, not that we’re not engaged continually with these same partners, but obviously, that’s a forum where you get to see everybody in the span of about 48 hours. Feedback continues to be leaning in even more so, I would say, I think largely as a result of the success we’ve had to date. Laura, I believe, joined us for our last call, where she indicated that we’re seeing success even earlier in the year than we had previously, and that a lot of that revenue was pulled forward that we typically book. So far, we are demonstrating exceptional ROI for the dollars that pharma is investing with us.

And I’ll give the regulatory environment a little bit of credit here, too, to suggest that the push on affordability and direct-to-patient programs coming out of various sources is continuing to help fuel pharma’s motivation to do deals and/or expand with us.

Christopher McGinnis: John, I would say the first of all, the one thing to note is that our point-of-sale buydown programs are not a part of those marketing budgets. So, that’s not impacted in terms of what you may be seeing in the marketplace. And the only dynamic I think that we really noted is Laura, who joined us last quarter, who’s the President of our Pharma Direct businesses, noted that the number of deals was down a little bit, but the dollar amount of those deals was higher. So net-net, we’re up across the board across Pharma Direct. So we’re seeing positive contribution from all aspects of that line of business.

John Ransom: And then just going back to the old core business, Rx Marketplace. I know it’s been a slog, but are you implying at least stabilization in terms of transactions and monthly MAC and transactions subscriptions? Do we look for that to stabilize and flatten? Or is there continued longer-term pressure there?

Christopher McGinnis: I think it’s a great question, John. I appreciate it. So, I do believe that our MAC will, I would call it, flatten. If you look back to last year, certainly with the impacts from the Rite Aid store closures and the ISP programs, other things we noted, we saw sequential declines. As I noted in my prepared remarks, we’re actually slightly up. It rounds to flat quarter-over-quarter. We’ve modeled in some continued erosion in MAC, but much more flatlined relative to last year’s trajectory. So, I do expect that to stay a little bit under pressure. But look, the start to the year was strong. It built some momentum, but I think we’re taking a very conservative approach for the rest of the year.

John Ransom: I mean, we look at like CVS, for example, and clearly, they’re on offense, taking share. I don’t know what’s going on with Walgreens anymore, but sorry, — my dog is going crazy. But if the retail marketplace continues to concentrate to the winners, is that neutral, flat, good for GoodRx, or is it not?

Wendy Barnes: For clarification, John, do you mean primarily just cash customers that CVS is attracting? I want to understand what you mean by the CVS comment or other retailers. because, of course, we don’t work with all of them.

John Ransom: What I mean is that the stronger players in retail pharmacy are taking share from the weaker players. And so is that neutral positive to GoodRx or not? I mean, I know the loss of Rite Aid was a bad guy, but let’s assume the retail market stabilizes and the strong get stronger. How do you view that in terms of your position in the market?

Wendy Barnes: I mean, look, in general, I would say we work with all of the top players. I mean, full disclosure, of course, we do have slightly different economics depending upon who the retail player is. But all things in the aggregate, all of our retailer partners are quite happy with the profitability they’re experiencing in partnership with us. Again, you heard us talk through historically how we are prioritizing margin accretion to retailers with the direct deals that we’ve been striking. So, having said that, we, on the whole, in the aggregate, are somewhat indifferent to where our consumers choose to go. Again, not to disregard the fact that, of course, we do have slightly different economics, but not materially so. Rite Aid was the outlier at the time, which, of course, was why the impact was, I think, so significant last year.

But beyond that, we’re focused on striking fair deals with each such that we’re not in that situation again, whereby any type of shift of our consumer set to a different retailer should things end up not going well with the retailer shouldn’t provide such an outsized impact to us again.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Charles Rhyee of TD Cowen.

Charles Rhyee: Chris, maybe I can ask this question for you. So obviously, we have the manufacturer-direct bucket, which is doing very well. We have the older PTR. And obviously, it’s good to see that MAC is flattening out. Subscriptions are growing. If we think about all those buckets together, and maybe think about what the total prescriptions processed by GoodRx were in the quarter? And what was that growth year-over-year? And is it may be better for us because I know we’ve all been very focused on MAC and PTR? But as the model shifts, is it better to look at what our total prescriptions are that we are touching and processing? And maybe if you can give us a sense for what that looks like and what growth has been, that would be helpful.

Christopher McGinnis: Thanks, Charles. Appreciate the question. I think it’s a fair question to ask about additional metrics that we might point to. We haven’t disclosed the consolidated prescription transactions across the entire business. So, let us take that away and think through it a bit. But I think part of your underlying point to the question is that if our business model works correctly, there is some cannibalization of our core business into pharma Direct. And if you think about GLP-1s is a great example that last year, prior to the pharma-sponsored point-of-sale programs, retailers and consumers were paying full price, and that was clearly coming through our PTR line, and it had higher PTR per MAC, et cetera. If those same consumers are getting that same prescription through now a point-of-sale buydown program, it shows up on the pharma Direct line.

So, there is interplay in terms of one side of our business cannibalizing the other, and that’s actually preferred to us. It’s a much longer-term, durable revenue stream for us. But I think the point of your question is the takeaway for us and let us think through that.

Charles Rhyee: And that would be great in the future. But do you have a sense right now whether, if you looked at all the prescriptions that you touched, regardless of what bucket was in, would you say that we’re seeing growth? Are we seeing up slightly, flat? Just curious, any commentary there? And then maybe one other would be a lot of other companies have called out weather impacting the first quarter, obviously, with a lot of the storms earlier in January and February. Just curious if that had any impact in the quarter? And if you could size that for us.

Christopher McGinnis: Let me take your first one first. In terms of your first question, if you imply with our MAC count, which is largely driven by the prescription transactions revenue, that was flat, right? And pharma Direct is growing. So, I think the implied impact is that our total prescription service on a consolidated basis is up overall. In terms of weather impacts, I mean, the flu season was a little bit longer and later than we thought. We didn’t see really…

Wendy Barnes: I can take that question. I mean, I will say, look, we track volume by geography just like a large retailer does. And true to form, you’re not wrong. Whenever there’s a random storm, yes, on the whole, volumes dip, but you almost always see those recover in the following week. So follows a similar cycle to pharmacies, if you will, in that regard, because that, of course, is where our consumers, in fact, get billed. But usually, if a consumer is motivated to get a prescription, they’ll just then push it into the following week if they were unable to do it based on whatever natural event took place.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Steven Valiquette of Mizuho Securities.

Steven Valiquette: I guess for me, I just have a couple of quick confirmatory questions around the accounting and revenue recognition on the subscription side. So just mathematically, the revenue per subscription is moving up from, call it, roughly $10 to $11. And I’m wandering around the GLP-1s. Are you just booking the $39 per month for the unlimited online care in the subscription revenue? Just want to confirm that first, and that’s why maybe that’s why that’s moving up. I just want to get more color on that first.

Christopher McGinnis: That is correct, Steven.

Steven Valiquette: And then, as far as some of the other companies around booking the drug revenue, some of your peers are booking the compounded drug revenue on their P&L, but not the branded drug revenue. So, I don’t know if there’s any clarification on that on your P&L one way or the other, and where that’s showing up, if at all, but I just wanted to get just a quick confirmation on that as well.

Christopher McGinnis: It’s helpful. Thank you. So as I said, the $39 you referenced, which is a monthly subscription fee, is hitting the subscription line. To the extent it’s going through our point-of-sale buy-down programs, you’re seeing that portion of the revenue actually getting picked up in Pharma Direct. It does not get grossed up treatment the way you’re suggesting others do it, especially like the compounders. We don’t do any compounding. We only deal with the FDA-approved drugs that are branded drugs on the Pharma Direct side. So we don’t have any gross-up of the drugs included in our revenue.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Brian Tanquila of Jefferies.

Brian Tanquilut: So, maybe just to follow up on some of these discussions. When we think about the pull forward in Pharma Direct that you spoke about earlier, should we still expect sequential growth going forward this year in that? And then, can you just give some more color on the growth in that space? Like when you think about or talk about the shift of claims and high cost branded from core to the Pharma Direct segment, like how much of this is actually affecting either line item?

Christopher McGinnis: Thanks, Brian. Appreciate the question. The answer is yes. If you look at our guide of 50-plus percent growth and the $52 million we put in Q1, I think you would imply continue sequential growth throughout the rest of 2026 for Pharma Direct, and we have pretty strong conviction at 50-plus percent growth on Pharma Direct for the remainder of the year.

Wendy Barnes: This is Wendy. I’ll take the second half of your question. So, as we think about just a longer-term outlook and what does the runway looks like for Pharma Direct, look, in our ongoing conversations and partnerships with these same manufacturers, they truly are starting to view us as the best channel solution for engagements with patients. So that continues to bolster our confidence in the pipeline of opportunity, not just this year, but well into the out years. I mean, added to the wraparound regulatory environment, which would suggest there will be more motivation for manufacturers to strike direct-to-patient deals, no doubt, GLP-1s have been a significant component of the growth we’ve experienced this year. But to be clear, there are a number of other GLP-1 molecules that we’ll be launching.

And outside of GLP-1s, we’ve continued to see material growth in our pharma Direct business. So, that continues to give us confidence that we’re going to continue to see this line item grow. Hence, our commentary on that being one of our key strategic growth drivers for the business.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Allen Lutz of Bank of America.

Allen Lutz: Wendy, at the top of the call, you talked about 1/3 of all Wegovy Pill transactions in the first 2 months coming through GoodRx. I mean, congratulations on that. That’s really, really strong. Can you talk about the trajectory from launch to maybe the March exit rate or anything you’re seeing early in April? How should we think about the contributions from that over the course of the quarter? And then how are you thinking about contributions from that through the remainder of the year?

Wendy Barnes: Sure. Well, I’ll start maybe more philosophically, just saying that this is just an exceptional example of what a brand launch with a cash strategy or point-of-sale buydown can do in the market. We have been partnering very closely with Novo on the timing, the PR tied to it, and the marketing elements. They, of course, owned their portion of what needed to happen, including embedding an EHR such that prescribers could see the doses of the pill to readily be able to write for it. They had gotten well ahead of ensuring that supply was available so that pharmacies could, in fact, dispense the same medication. And so all of those things tied together pointed to just an incredibly strong performance out of the gate.

I will also say, I think there’s something to be said for utilizing the same brand name that was used in their auto-injector. So, there was consumer familiarity with just the brand name, which we can discount if you want, but we do think it made a meaningful difference. And how that program has continued to perform. As we look into the future and how we’re anticipating the performance of that drug, look, we don’t see demand abating for GLP-1 therapies. And so for that reason, we continue to be pretty bullish on its performance, of course, even amidst other molecules launching, which, of course, will provide more consumer choice. And I think if the economics continue to hold the way most brands continue to launch, and then you end up with multisource brands, maybe pricing will come down further in the back half of the year.

I mean, these prices for all of these programs continue to fluctuate, and we’re keeping our finger on all of it such that we will be positioned to win both through the weight loss subscription program or for consumers who simply want to get their fill without utilizing the weight loss program.

Allen Lutz: And then one for Chris. As we think about the composition of revenue at GoodRx, a little bit less emphasis on PTR, a little bit more emphasis on subscribers, and the Pharma Direct business. I guess, Chris, conceptually, as we think about where you’re advertising and where you’re spending marketing dollars, 2025 versus 2026, is there anything that’s materially changing in terms of where those dollars are going? And would love to get a sense of if there are some of the early ones you’ve had there.

Christopher McGinnis: Thanks, Allen. Appreciate the question. We have pivoted our marketing budgets to me, more directed at our condition-specific subscription offering. We believe that there continues to be a brand halo effect from that specific advertising. So in the past, where our marketing dollars were more generally brand, we are targeting the subscription offering much more heavily in 2026 comparatively.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Craig Hettenbach of Morgan Stanley.

Jialin Jin: This is Jialin on for Greg Henck. I just want to follow up on the comment that PTR is in the down 24% range. I know it’s early but just wondering if you can share any thoughts on the trends beyond 2026. When you say like the lower unit economics in exchange for durability, is there like an expected timeline for when that process would bottom out?

Christopher McGinnis: Thanks. I appreciate the question. In terms of down 24%, I do think Q1 is probably in the range of how we think about the year-over-year comp for 2026 relative to 2025. I think that when you think about macroeconomic trends, something we’re watching closely with MAC being up sequentially, we’ve got early information, but obviously, we’re dealing with 1 quarter, and we’re thinking about how to think about that for the rest of the year. We know there’s a change in the macroeconomic environment relative to 2025. You’ve got more people uninsured this year. You’ve got some underinsured. You’ve got Medicaid eligibility changes. You’ve got the subsidies for the ACA lives. So, there are a lot of factors that we’re watching pretty closely to try to understand what’s going to happen to the business over 2026 and beyond.

But I think relative to like beyond 2026, we don’t really have a lot of guidance for the longer term, but I think the business largely can flatten out throughout this year. We’ll watch our MAC pretty closely. And then as we get to the back half, we can start to provide some more color around how we think about 2027.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Louis Mario Higuera of Citi.

Luismario Higuera: This is Luis on for Daniel. I know you described the TrumpRx platform as incremental to volume on a net basis, but can you give any details on what the economics of the partnership actually look like? And would it represent a meaningful revenue opportunity? Or is it more strategic positioning?

Wendy Barnes: Thanks for the question. This is Wendy. Look, we have been overt in commenting that most of the volume we’re seeing come through, to be clear, is largely GLP-1s coming out of TrumpRx, and there are, of course, a number of other drugs that we support on that same platform. But for now, our analysis would suggest, in fact, most of that volume is, in fact, incremental. There are new consumers on our platform who have previously not claimed with us. From an economic perspective, just as a reiteration, I think we may have talked about this previously, these are actually our direct deals with pharma. So, we do not have a contractual relationship with TrumpRx, nor does anyone else. It’s just reflective of our pricing.

And then in turn, when a consumer goes to choose said pricing, they’re utilizing our same flow pricing economics that we have directly with the manufacturer. So there is no distinction in the economic model for us. It is our brand point-of-sale deal, no different than if someone had come to us distinct and separate from TrumpRx, if that’s helpful.

Operator: Our last question comes from the line of Maxi Ma of Deutsche Bank.

Maxi Ma: This is Maxi on for George Hill. The GLP-1 space has become increasingly competitive with manufacturers, telehealth platforms, and pharmacies all building direct-to-consumer capabilities. Could you talk about how you differentiate your GLP-1 offering from others?

Wendy Barnes: Sure. Happy to take that question and thank you for it. I think, similar to the question that may have been phrased a little differently earlier in the call, it largely has to do with where we sit in the ecosystem. So one, we have the benefit of really being the top brand recognition for consumers when it comes to looking for drug pricing, whether it’s through web or app, so effectively our digital assets. We also have incredibly high NPS and brand recognition with prescribers, so they routinely use it in their workflow and in their conversations with patients. Not only do they check GoodRx for themselves, but we also have a product whereby there’s their own provider portal where we will present pricing to them in their unique environment, in addition to just how consumers engage with the platform.

Then, of course, you’ve got our connectivity to a really broad retail network. We do work with most retail pharmacies in the U.S. and some home delivery providers. And when you stack up all of those things and think about consumers engaging with us routinely already for checking their basket of drugs in combination with being able to choose where they get fulfillment, and/or if they want to utilize our subscription offering, to your point, that really is a key differentiator compared to these other programs that aren’t tapping into a broad retail network. Sorry, did you have a follow-up there? Hopefully, that answers your question. It sounds like maybe you had a follow-up there, but we couldn’t hear it if you did.

Operator: Hearing no response. This does conclude the question-and-answer session. I’d like to thank you for your participation in today’s conference. This does conclude the program, and you may now disconnect.

Receive real-time insider trading and news alerts