GoodRx Holdings, Inc.

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.

Thank you, Operator. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to GoodRx's earnings conference call for the first quarter 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, 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 factor section of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31st, 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 at investors.gooderx.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.

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. PharmaDirect 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. And RxMarketplace 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 healthcare 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 costs 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 PharmaDirect. GoodRx PharmaDirect continues to be a key growth engine for the business. In Q1, PharmaDirect saw 82% growth year over year, reflecting 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 QuickPen. To provide a sense of the scale we are driving, a third-party source indicates that we accounted for approximately one-third of all Wegovy Pill transactions in the first two 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 one. Beyond GLP-1s, we are continuing to expand PharmaDirect across therapeutic areas and program types. In the quarter, we announced a collaboration with Beatrice 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, PharmaDirect is evolving GoodRx beyond a 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 RxMarketplace. In Q1, RxMarketplace 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 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 nine of our top 10 retail pharmacies nationwide and enhancing our pricing capabilities, including partnerships that enable PharmaDirect 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 PharmaDirect 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 population 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 QuickPen, 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 benefits while delivering meaningful savings and improved access for employees. I will now turn the call over to Chris to discuss Q1 results.

Thank you, Wendy, and good morning, everyone. For the first quarter, we delivered revenue of $194 million and adjusted EBITDA at $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 Wagobe pill. Farmer direct deliver consistent sequential growth throughout 2025 which continued into the first quarter of 2026 supporting the year over year increase in reflecting the ongoing ramp of our consumer direct pricing offering. subscription revenue increase 16% year over year to $24.4 million supported by ongoing adoption of our conditions specific offerings. For the full year 2026, we are raising our guidance and now expect revenue to be in the range of $765 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 PharmaDirect 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.

Thank you, Chris. Q1 was defined by execution, but more importantly, it was a quarter where we saw clear validation of the strategy we're executing and the sustainable value proposition we believe it creates. We delivered strong performance in PharmaDirect, accelerated growth in subscriptions, and stable engagement in RxMarketplace, 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 position's good or X to play a more central role in how patients evaluate affordability and access treatment. That momentum gives us confidence in the opportunity ahead, and we remain focused on discipline 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.

Thank you. At this time, we will conduct the question and answer session. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 1-1 again. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question comes from the line of Michael Czerny of Learing Partners. Your line is now open.

Good morning. Thanks for taking the question. 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 implied subscription has gone up. What is the change in view, if any, been on the PTR revenue base that's embedded in the new guidance?

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

That's helpful, Chris, and it's certainly great context. 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, 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?

Hi, Michael. Good morning. 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 has long positioned us as really the number one 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 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 an 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 three 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?

Yeah, I would say from a financial perspective, Michael, what I'm encouraged by is 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, to Wendy's point about the volume of the consumers that are visiting our platform organically, and we got a lot of tailwinds from that. We're pushing marketing dollars in. 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. Great. Thanks so much. Nice job.

Thanks, Michael.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jalindra Singh of Truist. Your line is now open.

Hi, this is Peyton Engdahl on for Jalindra. Thanks for taking my question. I wanted to hit on the share script partnership you guys announced. It's been about like five months since that partnership's been announced. I was wondering if you could provide just an update on that and also if that had led to any type of a performance in the quarter.

Yeah, 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.

Yeah, from a financial perspective, nothing material and really nothing built into the guide on that either.

Okay, and then I also just want to hit really quick on the ISB. You guys noted some volume reduction in one of your integrated savings program. Just any color on that that you could provide, and if this was the same ISB partner that you guys saw last year as well, the same issue, so any color there would be helpful.

Yeah, thanks for the question. And for clarification, there's no there's no volume reduction in 2026. Anything we've referenced is a volume reduction associated with 2025 in the past, so we're only referencing it as a comp relative to the lapping impact in the year over year impact from the, you know, from the volume that was included in 25. It's not recurring this year, but so far this year the ISP programs are performing consistent with our expectations and the volume looks relatively stable. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of John Ransom of Raymond James. Your line is now open.

Hey, good morning. 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 kind of a pause in their marketing spend, you know, 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?

Good morning, 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 Assembia, not that we're not engaged continually with these same partners, but obviously that's a forum where you kind of 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. I mean, 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, 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.

John, I would say the one thing to note is our point-of-sale buy-down 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, I think Laura, who joined us last quarter, who's the president of our PharmaDirect businesses, noted that the number of deals were down a little bit, but the dollar amount of those deals were higher. So net-net, we're up across the board across PharmaDirect. So we're seeing positive contribution from all aspects of that line of business.

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

Yeah, I think it's a great question, John, and I appreciate it. So I do believe that our MAC will, I would call it flattened. If you look back to last year, certainly with the impacts from, you know, the Rite Aid store closures and, you know, 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. Um, we've modeled in some continued erosion and Mac, uh, but much more flatlined relative to last year's trajectory. Uh, so I do expect that to stay a little bit under pressure. Um, but look there, there, the start to the year had, you know, it was strong. It built some momentum, but I think we're taking a very conservative approach for the rest of the year.

Yeah.

I mean, is it, I mean, yeah, we look at like CVS for example, and clearly they're on offense taking share. They'll know what's going on with Walgreens anymore. Sorry, my dog is going crazy. But is that – if the retail marketplace continues to kind of concentrate to the winners, is that neutral, flat, good for GoodRx? Or is it not?

So, John, just for clarification, John, do you – for clarification, do you mean primarily just – cash customers that CVS is attracting. I want to understand what you mean by the CVS common or other retailers, because of course we work with all of them.

Yeah. What I mean is that, you know, 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 gets stronger. How do you view that in terms of your position?

In general, I would say we work with all of the top players. 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 kind of 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 a retailer, shouldn't provide such an outside impact to us again.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Charles Wright of TD Cowan. Your line is now open.

Yeah, thanks for taking the question. Chris, maybe I can ask this question for you. You know, so obviously we have, you know, kind of we have the manufactured direct bucket, which is doing very well. We have the old PTR, and obviously it's good to see that max of flattening out. subscriptions are growing. If we think about all those buckets together, and maybe you think about what was total prescriptions processed by GoodRx in the quarter, and what was that kind of growth year over year, and is it maybe better for us, because I know we've all been very focused on MACs and PTR, but as the model shifts, is it better to look at what is our total prescriptions that we are touching and processing and maybe if you can give us a sense for what that kind of looks like and that growth has been, that'd be helpful, thanks.

Yeah, thanks Charles, appreciate the question. I think it's a fair question to ask about additional metrics that we might, you know, 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 there is, if our business model works correctly, there is some cannibalization out of our core business into PharmaDirect. And if you think about GLP-1s as 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 buy-down 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 more longer-term, durable revenue stream for us. But I think the point of your question is a takeaway for us, and let us think through that.

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

Yeah. I'll take, let me take your first one first. The, in terms of your first question, If you sort of imply, if our MAC count, which is largely driven by the prescription transactions revenue, that was flat, right? And PharmaDirect is growing. So I think the implied impact is our total prescription service on a consolidated basis is up overall, right? In terms of weather impacts, I don't think we felt it. I mean, the flu season was a little bit longer and later than we thought. We didn't see really any impact.

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, you know, a random storm, yes, on the whole, volumes dip, but you almost always see those recover in the following week. So it follows a similar cycle to pharmacies, if you will, in that regard, because that, of course, is where our consumers, in fact, get bills. 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 upon whatever natural event took place.

Great. Thanks for the comments. Appreciate it.

Yep.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Steven Valliquette of Mizuho Securities. Your line is now open.

Thanks. Good morning. You know, I guess for me, I just have a couple of quick confirmatory questions around the accounting and revenue recognition on the subscription side. So, you know, just mathematically, the revenue per subscription, you know, is kind of moving up from, you know, roughly $10 to $11. And I'm wondering 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 maybe that's why that's moving up. I just want to get more color on that first. Yeah, that is correct, Stephen. Okay, and then as far as some of the other companies around booking the drug revenue, some of your peers are booking the you know, 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 quick confirmation on that as well.

Thanks. Yeah, it's helpful. Thank you. So as I said, the $39 you referenced, which is the monthly subscription fee, is hitting the subscription line. To the extent it's going through our program, you know, our point-of-sale buy-down programs, you're seeing that portion of the revenue actually getting picked up in PharmaDirect. 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, you know, the drugs that are branded drugs on PharmaDirect's side. So we don't have any gross-up of the drugs included in our revenue. Okay. All right. Thanks.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Brian Tanquilla of Jefferies. Your line is now open.

Hey, good morning, guys. Thanks for taking the question. 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 if you can just give some more color on the growth in that space, like we think about or talk about a shift of claims and high-cost branded products from core to pharma direct segments, like how much of this is actually affecting either line item? Thanks.

Yeah, thanks, Brian. Appreciate the question. The answer is yes. If you look at our guide to 50 plus percent growth in the, you know, the 52 million we put in Q1, I think you would imply continued 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.

Yeah, I will. This is Wendy. I'll take the second half of your question. So as we think about just kind of longer-term outlook and what does the runway look like for PharmaDirect, 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 kind of 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.

That makes total sense. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Alan Lutz of Bank of America. Your line is now open.

Good morning, and thanks for taking the question. Wendy, at the top of the call, you talked about a third of all will go be pill transactions in the first two 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? Thank you.

Sure. Well, you know, 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 buy down can do in the market. We had been partnered very closely with Novo on the timing, the PR tied to it, the marketing elements. They, of course, owned their portion of what needed to happen, including embedding in EHRs 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 that if you want, but we do think it made a meaningful difference in how that program has continued to perform. As we look in you know, kind of the future and how we're anticipating 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, you know, 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 multi-source 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.

Very helpful. 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 former 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 a Is there anything that's materially changing in terms of where those dollars are going? I would love to get a sense of if there is some of the early advice you've had there. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks, Alan. Appreciate the question. We have pivoted our marketing budgets to be 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, you know, brand generally, we are targeting the subscription offering much more heavily in 2026 comparatively.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Craig Hettenbach of Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open.

Hi, this is Jay on for Craig and back. Thanks for taking my question. I just want to follow up on the comment that PTR 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 a expected timeline for when that process would bottom out?

Yeah, thanks. 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, It's just we've got early information, but obviously we're dealing with one quarter and we're sort of thinking about how to think about that for the rest of the year. We know there's a change in the way or change in sort of 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 accolades. So there's 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 beyond 2026, we don't really have a lot of guidance for longer term, but I think the business largely... can flatten out throughout this year. We'll watch our MACs pretty closely, and as we get to the back half, we can start to provide some more color around how we think about 2027.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Luis Mario Higuera of Citi. Your line is now open.

Hey, this is Luis. I'm for Daniel. I know you described the TrumpRx platform Do you have any details on what the economics of the partnership actually look like, and would it represent a meaningful revenue opportunity, or is it more about strategic positioning? Thanks.

Yeah, hi, 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 Trump Rx, and there are, of course, a number of other drugs that we support on that same platform. But for now, our analysis, which would suggest, in fact, most of that volume is, in fact, incremental. There are new consumers to our platform that 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 Trump or X, 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 economic that we have directly with the manufacturer. So there is no distinction in the economic model to us. It is our brand point of sale deal, no different than if someone had come to us distinct and separate from Trump or X, if that's helpful.

Understood. Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Thank you. Our last question comes from the line of Maxima of Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open.

Yeah, hi, this is Maxima for George Health. Thanks for taking the question. The GLP-1 space has become increasingly competitive with manufacturers, telehealth platforms, and pharmacies all building direct consumer capabilities. Could you talk about how do you differentiate your GLP-1 offerings from others?

Sure. I'm 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, 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, in their workflow, in their conversations with patients, not only do they check GoodRx for themselves, we have a product whereby there's their own provider portal where it 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 then 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 who aren't tapping into a broad retail network. Sorry, did you have a follow-up there? Hopefully that answers your question. It sounded like maybe you had a follow-up there, but we couldn't hear it if you did.

Hearing none, 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.