Numan
researchedfull dossierThe most institutionally serious operator in the UK category, and the one with the worst advertising compliance record. Files audited accounts, holds a Good CQC rating, publishes every clinician's registration number as a live link to the register, and has five upheld ASA rulings.
Vir Health Limited, no. 11449267, incorporated 5 July 2018
Model
Two entities. Vir Health Limited holds the CQC registration, employs the prescribers and books all revenue. Numan Operations Limited holds GPhC pharmacy registration 9011408 in Cardiff and is a £1 subsidiary filing small-company accounts. Prescribing is done by a mix of GPs, prescribing pharmacists and a prescribing nurse, not doctors alone.
Multi-condition rather than GLP-1-only: weight loss, erectile dysfunction, hair loss, testosterone, premature ejaculation, diagnostics and now women's health. Weight loss now leads the navigation and erectile dysfunction has been demoted to third within the men's health panel. This is no longer a men's health brand.
Ownership
Founder Sokratis Papafloratos ceased as PSC on 21 July 2025 and a PSC08 statement of “no registrable person” was filed the same day. There have been no persons with significant control on the register since. The reading is benign: the round diluted the founder below 25% and no incoming investor crossed it. But Companies House no longer discloses who controls Numan, and the last public shareholder list is the July 2024 confirmation statement.
HSBC Innovation Bank holds an outstanding charge over, among other things, the UK registered trade mark “numan”.
Pricing
Correction. Mounjaro runs £219 at 2.5mg to £359 at 15mg, Wegovy £149 to £249, on 1-month rolling. Numan is the most expensive of the three UK dossiers on Mounjaro at both ends of the ladder, above Juniper and well above Bolt. It is not competing on price: the £20 first month, the Price Match against six named competitors and the “no charge unless treatment is prescribed” line are devices to neutralise a price objection, after which a non-cancellable commitment package locks the customer in. Exit costs £30 plus £15 per undelivered month.
Funding
£10m Series A led by Novator, October 2020. A$30m/$40m Series B led by White Star Capital, September 2021. £14.7m Kreos debt, February 2022. $60m in July 2025, being $30m equity plus $27m debt, led by Big Pi Ventures with Endeavor Catalyst, White Star, Novator and HSBC Innovation Banking.
The filings sharpen that: of the equity, roughly £5.7m was a convertible loan note converting at a 25% discount, not new cash. New primary cash was closer to £17.1m. Post-money is undisclosed but triangulates to £175m to £205m, or $240m to $280m, from the allotment price and from VNV Global's own fair-value mark on its 13.5% holding.
Scale
Correction. Trustpilot is 35,562 reviews at 4.6, not the 1,300 to 1,500 previously recorded, and 9.1% of them are one-star. FY2024 turnover £69,250,764, all of it United Kingdom, on 176 average employees. Gross margin has fallen from 67.6% in FY2022 to 49.8% in FY2024, which is the clearest quantified evidence in this atlas of what moving into GLP-1s does to a telehealth P&L. The company describes FY2024 as its first profitable year; the audited accounts show an operating loss of £2.26m and a post-tax loss of £3.54m.
Regulatory history
Correction, and this was the most consequential error in this atlas. This page previously recorded Numan as “notably absent” from the ASA actions hitting its competitors. The opposite is true.
Five upheld ASA rulings, in November 2021, October 2022, March 2023, March 2024 and December 2025. That is the joint-most in this atlas, level with Juniper. One was brought by the MHRA itself and one by a GP. Two are the same offence repeated after a direct instruction. The March 2023 ruling upheld all four issues and found that the price was hidden until after data capture and the subscription commitment was hidden until late in the journey.
Four MHRA advertising actions, including a standalone named report in April 2023 on off-label promotion of paroxetine by email, where the MHRA expressly rejected Numan's “ongoing consultation” defence. The same email channel was actioned again in July 2026.
Two failed GPhC inspections, February 2022 and September 2025, the latter specifically on weight-loss verification.
Markets
United Kingdom.
Covered in this atlas: United Kingdom.
Sources on the summary above
What this dossier changes
This atlas previously recorded Numan as “notably absent” from the ASA actions that hit its competitors. That was wrong, and it was the most consequential error in the file. Numan has five upheld ASA rulings, the joint-most in this atlas, plus four separate MHRA advertising actions including a standalone named report on off-label promotion by email. One ruling was brought by the MHRA itself and one by a GP. And the 2023 ruling, which found the price and the subscription commitment were hidden until late in the journey, describes a funnel that on today’s evidence is only half remediated.
Corporate
Every operating entity, and the chain from the local company up to the ultimate parent.
| Entity | Jurisdiction | Number | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vir Health Limitedinc. 2018-07-05 | England and Wales | 11449267 | Trades as Numan. Holds the CQC registration. Books essentially all group revenue: £69.25m in FY2024, 100% United Kingdom. |
| Numan Operations Limitedinc. 2021-01-29 | England and Wales | 13166466 | The pharmacy. GPhC 9011408, Cardiff. A £1 subsidiary filing small-company accounts. Incorporated fresh, not acquired. |
| VIR Health Ireland Limitedinc. 2022-05-06 | Ireland | CRO 718616 | Wholly owned. Share capital, reserves and profit all nil at 31 December 2024. Dormant or non-trading. |
| Vi-Health | Sweden | n/a | Acquired March 2021, an AI symptom checker and e-consultation business. Absent from the FY2024 subsidiary note, so dissolved, merged or an asset purchase. Unresolved. |
Shareholders of Vir Health Limited │ NO PSC SINCE 21 JULY 2025. The July 2025 round diluted the │ founder below 25% and no incoming investor crossed it either. │ Companies House no longer discloses who controls Numan. ▼ VIR HEALTH LIMITED (11449267) <- CQC 1-6118870417, all revenue ├─ NUMAN OPERATIONS LIMITED (13166466) <- GPhC 9011408, Cardiff └─ VIR HEALTH IRELAND LIMITED (IE 718616) <- dormant Charge over "the United Kingdom registered trade mark text 'numan'" in favour of HSBC Innovation Bank, created 23 Dec 2024, outstanding.
Licences
Who actually holds the pharmacy registration, the clinical registration and the prescribers. This is the block that most often contradicts a company's own description of itself.
W2, Capital Business Park, Cardiff CF3 2PW. Superintendent Pharmacist Sarah Gabrielle Morgan, GPhC 2049981, who has no independent prescriber annotation and is recorded as superintendent for more than one organisation. Note the owner is the subsidiary, not Vir Health.
The only competitor in this atlas with a substantial published inspection history, and the findings are the most useful primary evidence available about how any of these funnels actually work. See section 02 detail below.
Registered Manager Miss Danielle Maria Brightman. Nominated Individual Mr Sokratis Papafloratos. The Good rating is genuine and it is the best regulatory position of any competitor documented here. But the entire GLP-1 scale-up, from £29.9m to £69.3m of revenue, has happened without a fresh CQC inspection.
From the CQC inspection summary, which is more precise than the company’s own page: questionnaires are “reviewed by the GPs, prescribing pharmacists or a prescribing nurse with the support of the chief medical strategy officer and the clinical lead”. Numan’s own regulation page states “all doctors GMC-registered”, which is true but implies doctors do the prescribing. The CQC formulation is the accurate one.
Do not over-read this. The live register appears to list Northern Ireland sellers only, reflecting the post-Brexit position. Absence is expected for a GB-only distance seller and is not evidence of non-compliance.
Supplements were listed from April 2020, so a period of non-compliance of at least two years and nine months. UK law requires FBO registration 28 days before trading. Separately, in March 2024 Numan recalled vitamin D supplements containing restricted parabens, attributed to a supplier error. Single-source and not verified against an FSA record.
Money
The audited numbers, and the margin story inside them
Numan is the only competitor in this atlas that files full audited group accounts, so unlike Bolt’s self-reported claims or Juniper’s buried-in-a-parent disclosures, these are real.
| GBP | FY2021 | FY2022 | FY2023 | FY2024 | |---|---|---|---|---| | Turnover | 16,125,129 | 23,245,211 | 29,883,379 | 69,250,764 | | Gross profit | 10,574,506 | 15,725,494 | 17,432,637 | 34,458,955 | | Gross margin | 65.6% | 67.6% | 58.3% | 49.8% | | Operating loss | (11,965,768) | (15,386,783) | (8,269,374) | (2,258,915) | | Loss after tax | | (15,822,199) pre-tax | (9,048,774) | (3,540,707) | | Average headcount | 46 | 95 | 113 | 176 |
Two findings that matter more than the revenue line.
Gross margin has fallen from 67.6% to 49.8% in two years. Revenue grew 132% in FY24 while cost of sales grew 179%. That is the GLP-1 mix effect in a single number: branded injectables carry a far worse product margin than sildenafil or finasteride. Numan is buying growth at structurally lower margin, and it is the clearest quantified evidence in this atlas of what the shift into GLP-1s does to a telehealth P&L.
Turnover is 100% United Kingdom. The FY24 turnover note gives one geographic line. Despite the Irish subsidiary and the talk of European expansion, there was no non-UK revenue at all.
Balance sheet at 31 December 2024: cash £8.18m, net liabilities £3.60m, share premium £42.46m, accumulated deficit £47.34m.
The “$90m 2024 revenue” in the press is £69.25m converted at about 1.30. Use the sterling number.
The July 2025 round, from the filings rather than the press release
The headline is $60m: $30m equity plus $27m debt, led by Big Pi Ventures with Endeavor Catalyst, White Star Capital, Novator and HSBC Innovation Banking on the debt.
The SH01 returns of allotment tell a more precise story. On 21 July 2025:
| Class | Shares | Price | Cash | |---|---|---|---| | B-2B Preferred | 1,640,773 | £3.4985 | £5,740,244 | | B-2D Preferred | 3,537,204 | £4.6647 | £16,499,996 | | B-2F Preferred | 666,666 | £0.90 | £599,999 | | B Preferred | 25,198 | £0.00001 | £0.25 |
£3.4985 is exactly 75% of £4.6647. The B-2B tranche is a convertible loan note converting at a 25% discount, and £5.74m matches the £5.53m CLN on the FY24 balance sheet plus accrued interest. So of the “$30m equity”, roughly £5.7m was not new cash, it was existing debt converting. New primary cash on 21 July was closer to £17.1m, with a further £0.4m on 23 July. B-2F at £0.90 is warrant exercise.
Valuation is not disclosed. Two independent triangulations: 37,994,764 issued shares at the new-money price of £4.6647 gives a post-money of about £177m, and VNV Global, a listed shareholder, marks its 13.5% holding at USD 37.5m at 30 September 2025 on a “latest transaction” basis, implying about USD 278m. A defensible range is £175m to £205m, or $240m to $280m post-money.
Also worth noting: the directors’ report signed 10 July 2025 states “there have been no significant events affecting the company since the year end”, and the accounts were filed 22 July, the day after the round completed.
The claim that does not survive the accounts
Numan has said FY2024 was its first profitable year. The audited accounts show an operating loss of £2,258,915 and a post-tax loss of £3,540,707.
The claim can only be true on an adjusted or exit-run-rate basis. Both may be defensible internally. Neither is what “profitable” means to a reader. The audited number is the one to cite, and this is the kind of gap that a competitor, an investor or a journalist can open with a single Companies House lookup.
Other figures: patients treated “650,000+” at July 2025 and “north of 700,000 since 2019” at Q3 2025, both company-sourced. 2025 growth guidance of roughly 150%, and a projected ~$200m of 2025 revenue, both unverifiable until the FY25 accounts land, due 30 September 2026.
Markets
One card per country, live or not. A competitor's absence from a market is as informative as their presence.
- Entity
- Vir Health Limited (11449267) for prescribing, Numan Operations Limited (13166466) for dispensing
- Pharmacy
- Own: GPhC 9011408, Cardiff
- Prescribers
- GPs, prescribing pharmacists and a prescribing nurse
100% of FY2024 revenue. Multi-condition: weight loss, erectile dysfunction, hair loss, testosterone, premature ejaculation, diagnostics, and now a women’s health category.
- Entity
- VIR Health Ireland Limited (CRO 718616)
- Pharmacy
- None
- Prescribers
- None
Incorporated May 2022, principal activity recorded as “activities of holding companies”. Nil share capital, nil reserves, nil profit at 31 December 2024. An entity, not a market.
- Entity
- Not established
- Pharmacy
- Not established
- Prescribers
- Not established
Infrastructure indicates a German build, not the Greek one the company and its lead investor talk about. de.numan.com exists in certificate transparency and an isGermanEnv flag ships in the production bundle. No Greek asset was found anywhere in the estate.
- Entity
- Vi-Health, acquired March 2021
- Pharmacy
- None
- Prescribers
- None
Absent from the FY2024 subsidiary note. Dissolved, merged or an asset purchase. Unresolved.
Positioning
The actual words. Paraphrase loses the evidence.
OWN YOUR HEALTH. For a happier, healthier, longer life.
Set in a heavy display face, all caps, over a purple ink-diffusion image. The most confident brand expression of any competitor in this atlas, and the least product-led.
Nav order: Weight loss · Men’s health · Women’s health · Diagnostics · Why Numan
Weight loss leads the navigation, leads the hero chips, leads the proof section and is 33.5% of the sitemap. Men’s health is a second panel, and erectile dysfunction now sits third within it, behind testosterone. Women’s health has been added as a peer top-level category. The positioning has moved from “men’s health” to “weight loss with a men’s health tail”.
For us, support doesn’t stop at the prescription. Our clinicians review every case and only prescribe what’s clinically suitable for you. So yes, sometimes we say no.
“So yes, sometimes we say no” is the single best piece of copy any competitor in this atlas has written. It converts the refusal rate, which the GPhC recorded at 20 to 35% depending on condition, from an operational fact into a trust signal. Nobody else does this.
Danielle Brightman, Clinical Director, GPhC 2082368 · Dr Michael Lacey, GMC 7014057 · Dr Dimitris Schizas, GMC 7287399 · Dr James King, GMC 6148886 · Hassan Thwaini, Clinical Pharmacist, GPhC 2221320
Every registration number is a live outbound link to the actual regulator register, including to the GPhC inspection history. Content carries a MedicalWebPage schema with a named reviewer and a lastReviewed date. This is materially more rigorous than Juniper or Bolt and it is verifiable, which is the point.
Wegovy “Average of 20.7% body weight reduction⁷” · Mounjaro “Average 22.5% body weight reduction⁸” · Alli “Average 10.6kg body weight loss at 4 years⁹”
The published reference list on that page stops at 6. Three of the four medication efficacy claims cite superscripts 7, 8 and 9 against nothing. Separately, the Wegovy Pill claim of 16.6% cites reference 1, which is Jastreboff et al 2022, a tirzepatide trial, not oral semaglutide.
lose 35% more weight in the first 3 months
Stated twice, on the homepage and on /weight-loss. Reference 2 is “Griffiths, et al. Conference abstract. 2025”, which is Numan’s own unpublished abstract, authored by its own VP of Behavioural Medicine. Also “in our own 90-day study, patients lost an average of 11.3% in 90 days”. At least these are labelled.
No price anywhere on the homepage. No mention of the commitment package, the minimum term or the exit fee. No POM brand name in homepage body copy, only in the nav and the title tags. No pricing page at all. No competitor comparison pages whatsoever, in a 701-URL sitemap.
The absence of comparison content is the striking one. They name Boots, Superdrug, Voy, Juniper, MedExpress and SheMed in their own Price Match terms but publish zero “Numan vs” pages, in a category where Bolt has built 113 of them. That is a choice, and very likely a compliance-driven one.
Naming and gating
Prescription-only medicines cannot be advertised to the public anywhere in Europe. So how does this competitor refer to the drug, and what stands between a visitor and the brand name?
POM brand names are in server-rendered navigation, with “Buy online” title tags and Product schema
Not lazy-loaded, not behind a click, present in the raw bytes of the homepage under a category label reading “Medication”:
> Mounjaro · Wegovy · Wegovy Pill · Foundayo · Alli
Weight loss is the first nav item and this is its first sub-panel. The title tags carry transactional verbs attached to brand names: /weight-loss/mounjaro is titled “Mounjaro (Tirzepatide) weight loss injections UK | Buy online”, and its meta description ends “Order online from Numan today.”
The most exposed layer is the structured data. Both hub pages emit schema.org/Product with an Offer:
json {"@type":"Product","brand":"Numan","name":"Mounjaro", "offers":{"@type":"Offer","priceCurrency":"GBP","price":"20.00", "availability":"https://schema.org/InStock"}}
That is a machine-readable prescription-only medicine offer with a price, served to Google and, because robots.txt blocks no AI crawler, to LLM training and retrieval.
But note the difference from Bolt. Numan keeps POM names out of the homepage body copy entirely; the prose says “medication”, “treatment”, “a daily pill”. The brand names live in the nav and the title tags where they do SEO work. That is a more deliberate split than Bolt’s, and it suggests someone has thought about the line, even if the structured data undoes it.
The £20 on the Mounjaro page is not a Mounjaro price
The /weight-loss/mounjaro hero reads: “Numan Weight Loss Programme starting from: £20.00 / month”, and the Offer schema on the same page carries "price":"20.00".
The promo terms on /weight-loss say, in terms:
> “The 90-day trial is available with Wegovy only, both the Wegovy injection and the Wegovy pill. It doesn’t apply to other weight-loss medications, including Mounjaro.”
The cheapest real Mounjaro SKU is £219.00 per month. The £20 figure on the Mounjaro page is not traceable to any Mounjaro offer on the site.
Two further mismatches in the same schema: the Wegovy Offer price of £57.00 matches no SKU, the cheapest Wegovy being £139.00; and the Alli Offer price is £0.00 against a £50.00 SKU.
The Mounjaro page also drops the qualifier the Wegovy page carries. /weight-loss says “First-time weight loss medication users only… Price related to a 90-day plan”. The Mounjaro page says only “Price related to a 12-month plan”. Different qualifier, different plan length, same headline number.
The marketing opt-in is the last question of a clinical consultation
This matters because email is the exact channel the MHRA has now actioned twice, in April 2023 over paroxetine and again in July 2026 over weight-loss POMs.
There is no newsletter signup anywhere on the marketing site. All email capture happens inside the funnel, at a dedicated screen positioned at question 49 of 50, immediately after the user has disclosed a full medical history and chosen whether to notify their GP. Its production copy:
> “Get access to special offers” > “You’ll receive personalised health insights and exclusive monthly offers available only to Numan members.” > Label: “Email address (optional)”
It is labelled optional, and the offer messaging is already segmented by acquisition cohort at the point of capture, with separate variants for new patients and for switchers.
The broader marketing consent is bundled into the clinical consent: “By using Numan, you give us permission to use your health records which may be used for research, planning, and marketing purposes. Opt out by emailing clinic@numan.com.” Opt-out by email only.
Funnel
Every screen from landing to checkout. Three gates are marked: where price is first revealed, where payment is taken, and where the clinical assessment sits. The order of those three is the commercial model.
- 1. Disclaimer and consent gate
“Answer a few questions to find out if you may be eligible for treatment, which medication options are available to you and pricing, including any offers.”
A subscription record is created server-side against a device_id cookie. Note the copy openly states that pricing comes at the end. The whole funnel sits under
/subscribe, which is Disallowed in robots.txt, so it is invisible to crawlers. - 2. Priming questions
Prior GLP-1 use, and reaction to price increases
captures: Cohort segmentation
Asking about reaction to price increases before anything clinical is a pricing-research question inside a medical funnel.
- 3. Clinical questionnaire, 50 questions
Full medical history
captures: Medical history, and **self-reported height and weight**
The count is hard-coded:
setQuestionnaireProgress({numberOfQuestions:50}). This is by far the longest questionnaire of any competitor documented here, and it is a genuine differentiator. But see the GPhC finding below on what verifies the height and weight. - 4. Truthfulness attestation
Post-questionnaire disclaimer
- 5. GP notification
Choice, then GP practice and email
captures: GP details
Positioned at question 48 of 50. Offering GP notification at all puts Numan ahead of most of the field.
- 6. Email capture
“Get access to special offers”
captures: Email, marketing opt-in
Question 49 of 50.
- 7. Product and dose selection
- 8. Commitment planprice gate
First dose-specific price appears here
Price is disclosed at step 8, after 50 clinical questions and after email capture. The £20 headline on the marketing page is a floor price for one molecule on one plan, not a price for the treatment the user will be prescribed.
- 9. Account creationidentity gate
captures: Name, date of birth, password
- 10. Shipping and paymentpayment gate
captures: Address, card via Adyen
Payment sits at the end, after the clinical questionnaire. That is the right way round and it is the opposite of Juniper, Bolt and most of this category. Credit where it is due.
- 11. Verification, in the app, after orderingclinical gate
Body photo capture, in-app camera only
captures: Photos, weight
This is where the GPhC found the gap. Height and weight are self-declared in the web funnel with format-only validation, and independent verification is deferred to the app, after the order is placed. The app is therefore not optional: it is the mandatory verification gate, and also the only channel through which Price Match claims and commitment exits can be filed.
Pricing
Weight loss, standard 1-month rolling, before any discount
| Dose | Mounjaro | Dose | Wegovy inj. | Dose | Wegovy Pill | Dose | Foundayo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5mg | £219 | 0.25mg | £149 | 1.5mg | £129 | 0.8mg | £129 |
| 5mg | £249 | 0.5mg | £179 | 4mg | £159 | 2.5mg | £159 |
| 7.5mg | £299 | 1mg | £189 | 9mg | £199 | 5.5mg | £179 |
| 10mg | £319 | 1.7mg | £219 | 25mg | £249 | 9mg | £199 |
| 12.5mg | £339 | 2.4mg | £249 | 14.5mg | £229 | ||
| 15mg | £359 | 7.2mg | £319 | 17.2mg | £249 |
Alli (orlistat 60mg) £50. Ozempic £229 flat, legacy and restricted to two repeats. Discrepancy: the live SKU for Wegovy 7.2mg is £319 while the published help-centre price list says £379. Both verified; the contradiction is real.
Against the two other UK dossiers in this atlas
| Molecule | Numan | Juniper | Bolt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mounjaro 2.5mg | £219 | £199 | £149 |
| Mounjaro 15mg | £359 | £339 | £299 |
| Wegovy entry | £149 | £164 | £99 |
| Wegovy top | £249 | £229 | £239 |
Numan is the most expensive of the three on Mounjaro at both ends of the ladder. On Wegovy it undercuts Juniper at entry and is dearest at the top dose. The strategic read: Numan is not competing on price and knows it. The £20 first month, the Price Match and the “no charge unless treatment is prescribed” line are all devices to neutralise a price objection at the top of the funnel, after which the commitment package locks the customer in at list-plus pricing. The Price Match is the tell: you only offer to match six named competitors if you are consistently losing the comparison.
A live A/B price test on a prescription-only medicine
| Dose | Standard SKU | “mounjaro-test” SKU | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5mg | £219 | £264 | +£45 |
| 5mg | £249 | £274 | +£25 |
| 7.5mg | £299 | £324 | +£25 |
| 10mg | £319 | £344 | +£25 |
| 12.5mg | £339 | £364 | +£25 |
| 15mg | £359 | £374 | +£15 |
A parallel SKU family sits in the live product catalogue at a 7 to 20% uplift, corroborated by an experiment key named wl_commitment_uptake_v2_variant_test_pricing_note and by two experimentation SDKs, Statsig and Eppo, running in parallel. The existence of both ladders is verified; the traffic split is not. If it is live traffic, Numan at 2.5mg is £65 above Juniper and £115 above Bolt.
The commitment structure, which is the margin thesis
| Plan | Discount | Payment | Cancellable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling monthly | 0% | Monthly in advance | Yes, anytime |
| Prepaid 3-month | 16% | Upfront | Yes, pro-rata on undelivered |
| Commit 3 months | 12% | Monthly | No |
| Commit 6 months | 14% | Monthly | No |
| Commit 12 months | 16% | Monthly | No. New patients only |
90-day trial: month 1 at £20, months 2 and 3 at the standard 3-month rate. Wegovy only, explicitly excluding Mounjaro, first-time users only, and a binding three-month commitment. Early exit: a £30 administrative charge plus £15 for every undelivered month, payable within a 48-hour window on an expiring link, or, per the help centre, “that order will be dispatched according to your normal schedule”. Billing is 28 days for injectables, so a “monthly” plan bills 13 times a year, not 12. Disclosed in the definitions of the Product Specific Terms and nowhere in the marketing.
Surface
Domains from certificate transparency, not guesswork. Staged markets and internal tooling show up here first.
The switching cluster is the sharpest thing Numan has built
Most of this category’s SEO is undifferentiated “buy X online” intent. Numan has industrialised something better: capturing patients mid-treatment with another provider.
The content cluster: switch-from-mounjaro-to-wegovy, 5-myths-switching-from-mounjaro-to-wegovy, first-month-on-wegovy-after-mounjaro, stay-on-track-during-your-switch-from-mounjaro-to-wegovy, switching-between-mounjaro-and-wegovy-how-it-works, mounjaro-to-wegovy-advice-numan-doctor, wegovy-switching-claims-evidence.
And it is wired into the product: there is a dedicated funnel route at /subscribe/:category/switch/product-selection, a “Switch to Numan” module on /weight-loss, and the email capture screen has a distinct copy variant for isWeightLossSwitcher as against isWeightLossNewbie.
A patient already titrated onto a GLP-1 is the cheapest and highest-LTV acquisition available in this category: no education cost, no eligibility risk, proven willingness to pay. This is the single most copyable thing in any dossier in this atlas.
The second-best pattern is the support-ticket cluster: how-do-i-fix-a-jammed-mounjaro-pen, why-might-your-mounjaro-pen-seem-jammed, normal-liquid-left-mounjaro-pen, mounjaro-pen-exposed-to-heat. High-intent, low-competition long tail mined directly from real customer contacts.
The blog architecture is a deliberate authority play
701 indexed URLs, roughly 550 editorial. The blog is branded numankind at /numankind, but the articles do not live under it. They live under category paths: /weight-loss/medication/..., /hair-loss/treatment/....
That is not an accident. Every article accrues topical authority to the money hub rather than to a blog silo. Combined with about 30 author profile pages, MedicalWebPage schema with named reviewers and review dates, and dedicated pages at /editorial-clinical-integrity, /clinical-governance, /clinical-research, /patient-outcomes and /prescribing-process, this is the most serious E-E-A-T investment of any competitor documented here.
Themes by volume: weight-loss medication 90, ED 76, diagnostics 64, weight-loss tips 56, hair loss 46, testosterone 40.
A legacy stack is handling the entire revenue path
Two distinct front ends. The marketing site is Next.js App Router with a nonce-based CSP. The funnel is Nuxt 2 on Vue 2 with Vuetify.
Vue 2 reached end of life at the end of 2023. A legacy, out-of-support framework is running every pound of revenue. That is real technical debt and a genuine competitive vulnerability, and it is visible from outside.
The rest of the stack is unusually heavy: Storyblok as headless CMS, three session-recording vendors running simultaneously (Microsoft Clarity, Hotjar and Contentsquare), two experimentation platforms in parallel (Statsig and Eppo, suggesting a migration), Amplitude, GTM, Adyen for payments with Klarna as the named BNPL partner, a proprietary subscription engine on api.numan.com, Customer.io and Brevo and Drip and OneSignal for messaging, Intercom for chat, CookieYes for consent, Awin for affiliates, Rokt for post-transaction offers, LexisNexis for identity verification, Livi for video consultation, and Adalyser for TV attribution, which implies meaningful linear or CTV spend.
One posture note: the CSP is Report-Only, so it is not enforcing.
Domains, and one small comedy
The primary is numan.com. `numan.co.uk` is not owned by Vir Health and redirects to garynuman.com, the musician.
Certificate transparency shows de.numan.com, and the production bundle carries an isGermanEnv flag. The infrastructure points at a German market build, not the Greek expansion the company and its lead investor discuss. No Greek asset was found anywhere.
robots.txt allows everything except /account, /subscribe, /purchase, /confirmation and /healthz. No AI crawler is blocked, and there is no llms.txt, ai.txt or security.txt. Every POM hub page with its Product schema is fully open to LLM crawlers.
Reputation
Read the one-star reviews properly. They describe the operational model from the outside.
Trustpilot 4.6 on 35,562 reviews, and the on-site widget shows only five-star reviews
This atlas previously recorded “roughly 1,300 to 1,500 Trustpilot reviews”. The real figure is 35,562, by a wide margin the largest reviewer base in the category.
| Stars | Count | Share | |---|---|---| | 5 | 28,187 | 79.3% | | 4 | 2,459 | 6.9% | | 3 | 1,003 | 2.8% | | 2 | 684 | 1.9% | | 1 | 3,229 | 9.1% |
The same polarised J-curve as every competitor here: one-star reviews outnumber the two, three and four-star bands combined. Nearly one reviewer in eleven gives the lowest possible score. A 4.6 headline is doing a lot of work.
The homepage claim “4.6\* from over 35,000 people like you” is accurate as at today, which is more than can be said for Bolt’s hardcoded 4.8 badge.
One finding on how the reviews are displayed. The Trustpilot widget endpoints the site itself calls return only five-star reviews. Across four separate widget IDs, every returned review was five stars. The on-site social proof is a filtered feed, not a representative one.
The company’s own help centre is the best evidence of what goes wrong
Negative review text could not be read directly, since Trustpilot returns 403 to automated clients, and it will not be characterised from inference.
But Numan’s own support estate is more informative than third-party review aggregation, because it is the company telling on itself. It has had to publish dedicated articles for:
- “How do I fix a jammed Mounjaro pen?” and “How do I fix a jammed Wegovy pen?”
- “Why might your Mounjaro pen seem jammed”
- “Why does my Wegovy 7.2mg pen look different, and why have I received 4 pens instead of 3?”
- “Why didn’t I receive an ice pack with my Wegovy order?”
- “Understanding Our No Return Policy on Weight Loss Products”
- “How to Exit Your Commitment Period Early”
- Two separate blog posts on Mounjaro price changes
Jammed pens, cold-chain failures, no-return friction, exit friction and price rises. A support-content layer has been built around each.
Third-party review aggregation, on a small sample of 27, gives Pricing the lowest score at 6.8 out of 10 and surfaces the same themes: “My next delivery was going to cost £299, a massive increase from what I used to pay.”
The apps, and an age-rating problem
iOS 4.67 from 7,414 ratings, published by VIR HEALTH LIMITED, last updated the day of this dossier, age rating 17+.
Android 4.2 from 922 reviews, 100,000+ downloads, last updated the same day, content rating PEGI 3.
A 0.47-star gap and an 8:1 ratings imbalance against a 100k+ install base, the same pattern as Bolt and Juniper: the iOS review-prompt loop works and the Android one does not.
PEGI 3 for an app that gates prescription-only medicines and requires body photographs is very hard to defend, and it is the same inconsistency Bolt has.
The app is not optional. It is the mandatory verification gate, the health-coach channel, and the only route through which Price Match claims and commitment exits can be filed. It is simultaneously the retention moat and a hard dependency on the conversion path.
Visual evidence
Captured live from the public site. Each carries its URL and the date it was taken.
Homepage. “OWN YOUR HEALTH”, no price, no product, no medicine named in the body copy. Category chips lead with long-term weight loss; sexual support is second. The most confident brand expression in this atlas and the least product-led.
One click. The Weight loss nav panel, with a column headed Medication: Mounjaro, Wegovy, Wegovy Pill, Foundayo, Alli. This markup is server-rendered on every page, so it reaches an unauthenticated visitor with zero interaction.
The Mounjaro page, titled “Mounjaro (Tirzepatide) weight loss injections UK | Buy online”. It headlines £20.00 / month and emits an Offer schema at the same price. The promo terms elsewhere on the site state the offer “doesn’t apply to other weight-loss medications, including Mounjaro”. The cheapest real Mounjaro SKU is £219.
The weight-loss hub. Price now appears pre-capture, which discharges the narrow 2023 ASA finding, and the qualifier is more complete here than on the Mounjaro page: “First-time weight loss medication users only… Price related to a 90-day plan.” It still does not say the 90-day plan is a binding, non-cancellable commitment. Four regulator marks sit below the fold: CQC, GPhC, GMC and NICE.
Exposure
Rulings, investigations and open matters, dated. Then: what is still live on the site that the ruling was about.
A21-1115564. Paid search: “60% Off ED Treatments”, “60% off ED Tablets For Men”, £1.25 per tablet. Held to advertise prescription-only medicines to the public, because references to “tablets” plus “the clear implication that would be the outcome of a consultation” meant POMs, with no qualifying disclaimer. CAP rule 12.12.
Standard 3.1 failed, and the finding goes directly to funnel design: “The pharmacy is associated with a prescribing service whose website is arranged so that a person can choose medicines before there has been an appropriate consultation with a prescriber.”
That sentence is the clearest regulatory articulation in this atlas of what is wrong with the standard model, and it was written about Numan four years ago. Prescriber refusal rate was reported at 25 to 30%. A dispensing error involving two sildenafil strengths had led to physical segregation of the two.
A22-1154781. A TV ad for Regaine for Men Extra Strength: “Clinically proven… Now with the Numan money back guarantee. See results in 180 days or your money back.” The complaint was brought by the MHRA itself. The ASA held the overall impression was that effects were “proven and guaranteed”. BCAP rule 11.23.
A22-1153049, and the most important ruling in this dossier. The complaint was brought by a GP. Four findings about numan.com itself:
- (a) “FREE if we don’t find anything” was misleading, because roughly 90% of users had at least one out-of-range biomarker and only 4 to 10% actually qualified for a refund.
- (b) The “free” claim breached the free-offer rules.
- (c) The £98 to £128 price only appeared after the user had handed over personal information.
- (d) The quarterly subscription commitment was not disclosed until late in the customer journey.
Breaches of CAP rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.4.3, 3.7, 3.9 and 3.23. Issues (c) and (d) are funnel-design findings, and section 06 of this dossier tests both against the live site.
A standalone named report: “Promotion of paroxetine by Vir Health Ltd trading as Numan”. Not a list entry in a sweep, a report about one company.
A member of the public complained about a Numan email promoting paroxetine. Numan characterised it as part of an ongoing consultation with existing patients about urological symptoms. The MHRA rejected that, finding the email “was designed to promote the prescription, supply, sale, or use of a medicinal product (paroxetine)” using language such as “last longer” and “solutions that work”, and that it was likely to lead a member of the public to request a POM, contrary to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. The MHRA also noted paroxetine had not been formally assessed for the indicated use, so this was off-label promotion.
Vir Health agreed to stop targeted emails about specific prescription medicines and committed to training and a compliance review.
“Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan” amended its advertising following MHRA action, in a report concerning promotion of unlicensed or prescription-only medicines and misleading statements about medicines.
A22-1178070. Regaine again: “If your hair doesn’t grow back after 180 days of using Numan we’ll give you a full refund”, plus “Clinically proven” and a spinning wheel landing on “FULL REFUND”. BCAP 11.23.
This is the same offence as October 2022, repeated after a direct instruction from the regulator. Guaranteed-efficacy framing of a money-back guarantee, twice, seventeen months apart.
“Vir Health Limited t/a Numan (male hormone support services)” amended advertising following MHRA action, in a report addressing promotion of POMs and off-licence use to the public. Only one other company was listed in that report.
Standard 1.1 failed, and this one is about weight loss specifically. The pharmacy lacked sufficient assurance that the associated prescribing service “consistently verifies people’s health information independently before prescribing weight loss medicines”.
Separately flagged under standard 4.2: audit trails for certain medicines did not clearly record “who was involved in the dispensing process”, which would hamper incident investigation. An improvement action plan was published 13 November 2025.
This is the structural cost of the two-entity split. The GPhC regulates the Cardiff pharmacy, but the self-declared height and weight and the prescribing decision sit in the other company.
G25-1302198, the “Buffet Boy” weight-loss TV ad. Three complainants, including a medical doctor. The ASA held the ad implied Alli (orlistat) suppressed appetite or reduced cravings, whereas the SmPC shows it acts solely to inhibit fat absorption. Numan was told to ensure medicine advertising aligns with the authorised product characteristics. BCAP 11.19.
Reinspection, standards met, but the language is not a clean pass. The inspector recorded that the pharmacy “does not always gain assurances that the prescribing service’s additional verification measures for patient weight and relevant health conditions are operating effectively for all prescriptions”, while accepting that the pharmacy had shown due diligence in seeking assurance.
The regulator has now twice settled for an intra-group assurance relationship rather than direct verification.
“Vir Health Limited t/a Numan (distribution of emails and text message)”, one of seven companies that amended advertising after MHRA action on promoting weight-loss POMs to the public. The others included Bolt Healthcare, Simple Online Healthcare and The Family Chemist.
Note the recurrence. The April 2023 case was about promotional emails to existing patients. This one is expressly about emails and text messages. The same channel and the same failure mode, three years apart.
Testing the March 2023 ruling against the live site.
(c) Price disclosure: partially remediated. A headline “From £20.00 / month” now appears in the hero of /weight-loss before any interaction. That genuinely discharges the narrow finding. But the dose-specific price still appears only at step 8 of 10, after 50 clinical questions and after email capture, and Numan’s own funnel copy says so: “Answer a few questions to find out… which medication options are available to you and pricing.”
(d) The commitment disclosure: not remediated, and now internally contradictory on a single page. The /weight-loss FAQ says: “Do I have to commit to a long-term plan? No… there’s no fixed commitment required.” Further down the same page, in a collapsed accordion, the promo terms say: “By signing up, you’re agreeing to stay subscribed and pay all 3 monthly instalments. You can’t pause or cancel during the 3 months.”
The hero footnote says only “Price related to a 90-day plan”. It does not say the 90-day plan is binding. A user must open a collapsed accordion at the foot of the page to learn that the advertised £20 entry price carries a non-cancellable three-month lock-in with a £30 plus £15-per-month exit charge.
Meanwhile the checkout UI says the opposite: wl_dosage.billing_info reads “Billed monthly, cancel anytime”, wl_dosage_selection reads “cancel or pause anytime”, and the homepage “Why Numan” bullet reads “Cancel anytime.” These strings are in the same funnel that sells the non-cancellable package.
(a) The conditional free claim: the 2023 version is gone and the “free consultation” claim is now clean, corroborated by a £0.00 consultation SKU. But its successor, Price Match, has the same shape: a refund claimable only after paying a full commitment plan, first-time users only, same-day screenshots, one claim per customer, and no qualifying rate published.
No CMA case exists. But the DMCC Act 2024 gives the CMA direct consumer-enforcement powers, with fines up to 10% of global turnover, over exactly two practices: subscription traps and drip pricing.
The ASA found both in Numan’s funnel in March 2023. The commitment contradiction documented above is a live instance of the first. This is the most serious forward-looking exposure on this page, and it does not require anyone to complain to the ASA first.
Read-across
What a new entrant should copy, and what it should avoid.
Copy this
- Build the switching funnel. The content cluster, the dedicated
/subscribe/:category/switch/route, the “Switch to Numan” module and the cohort-segmented email copy. A patient already titrated onto a GLP-1 with another provider is the cheapest and highest-LTV acquisition in this category, and Numan is the only operator here who has industrialised it. - “So yes, sometimes we say no.” Turn the refusal rate into a trust signal. The GPhC recorded 20 to 35% refusal depending on condition; most operators hide that and Numan sells it.
- Put every registration number on the page as a live link to the actual regulator register, including the GPhC inspection history. It is verifiable, it costs nothing, and no competitor here does it as thoroughly.
- Put payment after the clinical questionnaire, not before. Numan is the only one of the three UK dossiers in this atlas that does, and it removes the single most attackable feature of the standard model.
- Architect editorial under the money hub, not under a blog silo. Numan’s articles live at
/weight-loss/medication/..., so every piece accrues authority to the commercial page. - Mine support tickets for long-tail content. “How do I fix a jammed Mounjaro pen” is high intent, near-zero competition, and it comes free from your own inbox.
Avoid this
- Saying “there’s no fixed commitment required” on the same page as “you can’t pause or cancel during the 3 months”. This is a subscription trap under the DMCC Act 2024, the CMA can now fine directly for it, and it was already found against Numan by the ASA in 2023.
- Headlining a £20 price on a product page the offer explicitly excludes. The Mounjaro page carries a £20 hero and a £20 Offer schema for a product whose cheapest real SKU is £219.
- Citing reference numbers that do not exist. Three of four medication efficacy claims point at superscripts 7, 8 and 9 on a page whose reference list stops at 6.
- Repeating an offence after a regulator has told you to stop. The guaranteed-efficacy money-back framing was ruled against in October 2022 and run again in March 2024.
- Using email to promote specific prescription medicines to your existing patient list. The MHRA rejected the “ongoing consultation” defence in 2023 and actioned the same channel again in July 2026.
- Running an A/B price test on a prescription-only medicine at a 7 to 20% uplift. Whatever the commercial logic, it is very hard to explain to a regulator or a journalist.
- Leaving the commitment terms on a legal page that is not linked from the footer. The clause that binds a customer to a non-cancellable three-month plan lives on
/legal/product-specific-terms, reachable only via a cross-reference inside another legal page. - Shipping a money-back claim whose substantiating footnote begins with the word “(Placeholder)” and then describes a hair loss guarantee. It is in the production bundle today.
Open on this company
- What do the FY2025 accounts show? Due 30 September 2026. They will test the ~150% growth guidance, the ~$200m revenue projection, and whether the gross margin slide from 67.6% to 49.8% continued or stabilised. The single most valuable data point pending on any company in this atlas.
- Is the
mounjaro-testprice ladder receiving live traffic, and at what split? Both ladders are verifiably in the live catalogue. - Does the “(Placeholder)” money-back claim ever render? It is shipped to every visitor’s browser, its footnote describes a hair loss guarantee, and it was not observed on any public page.
- What is the Price Match qualifying rate? The 2023 ASA ruling turned on a 4 to 10% qualification rate for the previous conditional claim. No rate is published for this one.
- Germany or Greece? The infrastructure says German (
de.numan.com,isGermanEnv); the company and its lead investor say Greek. No Greek asset exists in the estate. - What happened to Vi-Health, the Swedish acquisition, and what was the second, UK acquisition that TechCrunch reported in 2021? Numan Operations was incorporated fresh, so it is not that.
- Who controls Numan? There has been no PSC on the register since 21 July 2025 and the last public shareholder list is the July 2024 confirmation statement.
- Does the "Pay in full" and "Pay in instalments" fake-door test at checkout still route to monthly billing? It is shipped in the funnel copy catalogue but was not observed rendering.