GoodRx Holdings Inc (GDRX) 2025 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the GoodRx fourth quarter and full-year 2025 earnings call. As a reminder, today's conference is being recorded.

I would like now 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 fourth quarter and full-year 2025. 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 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 at 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.

Thank you, Aubrey, and thank you to everyone for joining us today.

The fourth quarter marked a strong finish to the year and reflected disciplined execution across our strategic priorities. We expanded direct-to-consumer affordability programs with pharmaceutical manufacturers, scaled differentiated subscription offerings, and deepened relationships with retail pharmacies. Those results were shaped by a year of meaningful change across the healthcare landscape. In 2025, affordability pressures intensified, policy dynamics reshaped access and pricing, and consumers increasingly expected healthcare to be more transparent, accessible and direct.

Together, these shifts pushed affordability and access to the center of healthcare decision-making, an environment that plays directly to GoodRx's strength. Against that backdrop, we moved quickly to translate market change into clear execution across our platform. We expanded access to high-impact therapies like GLP-1s and supported manufacturers as they leaned further into direct-to-consumer strategies. We launched condition-specific subscriptions that bring pricing, care and access together in a single seamless experience. And we partnered with pharmaceutical manufacturers to integrate pricing into TrumpRx, helping them operationalize self-pay pricing at scale.

Taken together, these actions demonstrate how we're evolving GoodRx to meet the needs of consumers, pharmacies, manufacturers and policymakers in a rapidly changing healthcare environment. While our core marketplace remains foundational, we are increasingly orienting the business around pharma manufacturer solutions as a key growth driver. This reflects the evolving dynamics of prescription access and pharmacy economics, where brands are playing a more significant role in retail performance. Importantly, this strategic evolution builds on a position of strength.

With the number one prescription app and nearly 300 million site visits annually, we continue to lead in prescription savings. That scale and consumer reach uniquely position us to deliver value in an environment where affordability and direct-to-consumer access are becoming central to how medications are brought to market. As pharmaceutical manufacturing solutions scales, it reinforces and enhances our core platform by accelerating subscriptions, deepening retail relations and expanding our ability to engage with employers, all while creating differentiation competitors cannot easily replicate.

We believe this positions GoodRx for stronger, more resilient long-term growth, even as we navigate near-term financial impacts from this transition. Now diving into key business updates, starting with Pharma Manufacturer Solutions, which has become a key growth engine for our business, with full year revenue up more than 40% in 2025 year-over-year. The industry dynamics I just discussed, combined with tighter insurance coverage are fundamentally changing how prescriptions are accessed. Affordability decisions are moving earlier in the journey, forcing patients to play a more active role in how medications are selected, paid for and filled.

At the same time, the rapid growth of GLP-1s for obesity has accelerated direct-to-consumer models and heightened expectations around transparency and convenience. As a result, consumers increasingly want the prescription experience to reflect the standards set elsewhere in their lives, with digital-first tools, transparent pricing upfront and a seamless path from decision to fulfillment. But the prescription journey hasn't kept pace at scale, and that gap becomes most visible at the moment consumers are ready to act. This makes direct-to-consumer engagement essential.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are investing more in patient-facing strategies to meet consumers earlier and need partners that can execute those strategies at scale. That's where GoodRx stands apart. With nearly 25 million consumers and more than 1 million healthcare professionals using our platform each year, we operate directly in the flow of patient decision-making, enabling manufacturers to turn pricing strategies into real access and adherence. That momentum sets the stage for the next evolution of Pharma Manufacturer Solutions, which we're now calling GoodRx Pharma Direct.

This evolution reflects a clear vision for the role GoodRx plays in modern pharmaceutical commercialization, serving as a proven digital storefront for self-pay and direct-to-consumer strategies that are becoming increasingly central to prescription access. For pharmaceutical manufacturers, Pharma Direct provides the infrastructure to bring affordability programs to market at scale, applying modern e-commerce principles to prescription access. This creates a streamlined, repeatable way to launch self-pay strategies without building new consumer platforms or point solutions.

This capability matters because self-pay is increasingly shaping how drugs are brought to market, with manufacturers launching with discounted cash prices as a core access strategy. Earlier this year, Novo Nordisk launched the Wegovy pill with select doses available for $149 per month. As one of the launch collaborators, GoodRx offered this lowest available self-pay price from day 1, giving consumers immediate clarity on cost and access. When paired with the GoodRx for weight loss experience, consumers are able to evaluate their treatment options, and if eligible, move forward without delay.

Based on data Novo Nordisk released during their recent earnings call, paired with our own internal data, we believe GoodRx accounted for nearly 20% of all Wegovy Pill self-pay fills during a single week in January, demonstrating the scale and reach of our platform. More broadly, this model has the potential to scale across the GoodRx platform. The same self-pay strategies that support launches also strengthen subscriptions and drive savings at the retail counter. Today, we have more than 100 brand self-pay programs live, many of which are integrated into TrumpRx to further expand their reach and visibility.

This foundation also enables us to serve as a key integration partner for pharmaceutical companies offering discounted cash prices on TrumpRx. Manufacturers are partnering with us to host their self-pay prices on GoodRx, and we then integrate those prices into the TrumpRx platform. Our nationwide pharmacy network and home delivery capabilities when available, mean the programs we are hosting can scale quickly and consumers can access the savings wherever they choose to fill their prescriptions. We are proud to be the integrated pricing source for Pfizer and other leading manufacturers at launch, including over 30 of Pfizer's essential brand medications spanning women's health, migraine, arthritis, rare disease, and more.

This integration underscores GoodRx's role as critical infrastructure for delivering manufacturer affordability programs at national scale. Ultimately, Pharma Direct reflects how pharmaceutical commercialization is evolving, with self-pay and direct-to-consumer strategies playing a central role and how GoodRx is enabling that shift. Laura Jensen, our Chief Commercial Officer and President of Pharma Direct, is here with us today and will be available to address questions about Pharma Direct following our prepared remarks. Laura joined GoodRx from Amazon Pharmacy in August to lead our work with pharmaceutical manufacturers and has been instrumental in shaping and accelerating the strategic evolution.

Now turning to Rx Marketplace. The fourth quarter marked important progress in stabilizing our prescription marketplace and deepening our partnerships with retail pharmacies, even as the broader retail pharmacy environment remains challenged. We significantly expanded our e-commerce ecosystem, tripling our retail footprint through an accelerated rollout of new partners during the quarter. This expansion allowed us to exit the year with 6 of our top 10 retail pharmacies live on our platform and drove a clear inflection in consumer adoption, with order volume up 83% quarter-over-quarter. At the same time, we strengthened the underlying economics of the marketplace.

We now have direct contracts in place with 9 of our top 10 retail pharmacies nationwide, providing a strong foundation for attractive retail margins. We also drove strong RxSmartSaver momentum and continued to scale Community Link, implementing direct contracting at an expanding number of independent pharmacies nationwide. Now turning to subscriptions. We continue to execute against our condition-based strategy, focusing on high-intent areas where affordability and access are the primary barriers. In 2025, that included erectile dysfunction, hair loss and weight loss.

While still early, the initial launch and subscriber activations have exceeded our expectations, reinforcing our confidence in this approach. Weight loss, in particular, highlights the unique role GoodRx can play in direct-to-consumer healthcare. GLP-1 treatments for weight management are often not covered by insurance, leaving most consumers paying out of pocket. With GoodRx for Weight Loss, we simplify the entire journey from virtual consultation to prescription to fulfillment at nearly every pharmacy nationwide, using only FDA-approved therapies and pairing them with transparent industry-leading discounted cash prices, powered through our direct relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Given the scale of unmet demand in this category, weight loss represents a meaningful long-term opportunity and a clear example of how GoodRx serves as a connective layer across care, pricing and access. Another important driver of subscription growth is the continued strength of our brand. Consumers recognize and trust GoodRx as a reliable entry point for prescription savings, and that brand equity is translating into efficient customer acquisition. We have attracted high-intent users and converted them at customer acquisition costs below industry benchmarks.

Given those returns, we plan to continue investing in brand and performance marketing and will increase spend to drive subscription growth where we see strong unit economics. We also just introduced Employer Direct, a new offering designed to help employers address gaps in traditional insurance coverage by pairing their existing benefits with integrated cash pricing. The program is built to work alongside rather than replace employer health plans and gives employers practical ways to expand affordability and access without taking on additional plan complexity.

There are two ways to engage with Employer Direct. First, employers can work with us to create medication-specific programs to contribute directly to the cost of individual brand medications that are not covered or are inconsistently covered under their health plans. These contributions are applied at the pharmacy counter, effectively buying down the employee's out-of-pocket cost for a specific drug. We launched this approach with our first employers at the start of this year with an initial focus on GLP-1 medications.

Second, employers can partner with us to offer an employer-specific version of GoodRx's condition-specific telemedicine solutions, including weight loss, erectile dysfunction and hair loss. We see Employer Direct as a natural extension of the GoodRx platform and a meaningful growth opportunity within our portfolio.

I will now turn the call over to Chris to discuss fourth quarter and full-year results as well as 2026 guidance.

Thank you, Wendy, and good morning, everyone. For the fourth quarter, revenue came in at $194.8 million, and adjusted EBITDA was $65 million. This resulted in full-year 2025 revenue of $796.9 million, which was up 1% year-over-year. Full-year adjusted EBITDA was $270.5 million, which constitutes 4% growth over 2024. Our 2025 financial performance was in line with the company's latest guidance with adjusted EBITDA just above the midpoint of our guidance range. Drilling down on full-year revenue, prescription transactions revenue declined 6% year-over-year to $544 million.

As we previously discussed, the impact of the Rite Aid bankruptcy and lower volume through one of our integrated savings program partners was approximately $35 million to $40 million for the year and, therefore, impacted our year-over-year growth rates.

Subscription revenue decreased 3% year-over-year to $83.8 million. We have seen strong early adoption related to our condition-specific subscriptions, particularly around weight loss, which started late in 2025. We expect it will contribute more meaningfully to the overall subscription revenue in 2026. Revenue from Pharma Direct, previously Pharma Manufacturer Solutions, increased to $151.4 million, up 41% year-over-year, driven by deepening our sell-through at manufacturers and ongoing growth in our consumer direct pricing. Our balance sheet remains strong, ending the year with $261.8 million of cash on hand with approximately $80 million of unused capacity available under our revolving credit facility.

During the year, we repurchased approximately 48.9 million shares of our stock at an average price of $4.45 per share, totaling $217.4 million. We continue to believe that share repurchases are a signal of management's confidence in the company's future and are the most efficient method of returning capital to shareholders. For the full year 2026, we expect revenue to be in the range of $750 million to $780 million and adjusted EBITDA to be at least $230 million. Our outlook reflects the decisions we are making to ensure the long-term durability of our business.

We are making trade-offs to invest more heavily in our Pharma Direct and subscription offerings, which strengthen our ability to deliver value to pharma, improve the economics of relationships of our retail relationships and continue to simplify how consumers engage with prescriptions on our platform. Furthermore, we have made deliberate choices to favor long-term durability and certainty that will negatively impact our near-term unit economics. As a result, and in combination with the lapping impacts from 2025, we expect pressure on prescription transactions revenue in 2026, which is reflected in our guidance.

We expect Pharma Direct revenue to grow at least 30% in 2026 year-over-year. And while our newly launched condition-specific subscription programs are not material today, the programs accelerated significantly in the fourth quarter of 2025, and we expect that to continue throughout 2026. As Wendy noted, our prescription transaction offering is foundational and enhancing performance remains a top priority. While monthly active consumers fell 14% in 2025 versus the prior year, we expect monthly active consumers to be flattening sequentially from Q4 2025 through Q4 2026.

We're encouraged by the continued growth profile of Pharma Direct and subscription offering and the robust interest in our Employer Direct offering. We strongly believe the strategy we are executing on will build momentum throughout the year and put us in a position to grow beyond 2026.

With that, I will turn the call back over to Wendy.

Thanks, Chris. Looking ahead, what stands out to me is how closely our strategy aligns with the realities of today's healthcare environment. The work we've done over the past year positions us squarely against the shifts reshaping access and affordability and strengthens both the relevance and long-term resilience of our platform. Healthcare is becoming more consumer driven. Manufacturers are playing a more active role in pricing and access, and retail economics continue to evolve. Those dynamics require new models, and we've been intentional about building the capabilities and partnerships that allow GoodRx to meet that moment.

We have made clear choices about where to focus and how to compete. As Chris mentioned, these choices will impact prescription transaction revenue in the near term as we transition to improve the durability of the offering and bolster the growth of Pharma Direct and subscription revenue in the long term. As we move into 2026, our priority is executing against those choices with discipline and consistency while continuing to strengthen the foundation of our platform. I'm confident in the direction we've set and in our team's ability to deliver.

I'll now turn the call over to the operator for questions.

(Operator Instructions) Michael Cherny, Leerink Partners.

Maybe, Chris, if I could dive in a little bit more on the revenue guidance. You talked about the pressure in PTR yet a stabilizing of the MAC rate. Can you just talk a little bit about the unit economics in terms of what it physically looks like? What are some of the re-contracting efforts you're taking? And how it will change or will it not change your positioning and relationship across pharmacies, PBMs and members?

Yes. Thanks, Michael. Appreciate the question. I mean, let me unpack the decline on the PTR side a little bit. So I think there's probably three primary factors that are really driving the decline.

First, as I noted in my prepared remarks and as we've talked about previously, we had significant revenue coming from Rite Aid and some of our other partner programs during 2025 that will not recur in 2026. Secondly, we are seeing a shift of claims, particularly around high-cost branded medications from our core business to Pharma Direct, and that's reflected in the growth profile of our point-of-sale programs within that offering. And then finally, as you're calling out, I think the largest contributor is really a decline from unit economics.

This is a negotiation of lower fees across multiple partners in our ecosystem. And look, we're doing this in exchange for longer-term durability and predictability, as I mentioned in our -- in my prepared remarks. And that's a significant reset of our unit economics. And look, we factored this into the guidance. I think it's a headwind of, I would call it, as a percentage of consolidated revenue, an impact of the mid-single digits.

But we believe this positions us to steady the core over the long term. And I think as you point out, it reflects our MAC trends. I mean, we've modeled MAC. Our exit rate of 2025 was, I think, 5.3%. And so we've got that number basically kind of flat to slightly declining.

So maybe we end the year at about 5.2% and you sort of think about it relatively flat to just a slight decline. So yes, I think, look, we're trying to stabilize the core. And when we think about it, to your question, there's a simple math question, not to be -- state the obvious, but it's the rates we get and it's times the volume we get. And so the first order of business is stabilizing the volume. And we think working with partners in the ecosystem to ensure that we are limiting getting disintermediated at the counter that we're pushing consumers to the right program, whether it be Pharma Direct or the retail counter, optimizes our overall solution.

It optimizes our overall relationship with retail partners. And we view the overall retail relationship as a two-way street. Brands used to be a loser at retail, and we're ensuring that it no longer is. And when we look at that relationship in aggregate, we're trying to mitigate the disintermediation, the sort of competition at the admin fee level. So when we can trade off and exchange longer-term predictability on a rate side for near-term pressure, but stabilize the volume, we think that's the first step in a longer-term, more durable value-add profile.

Yes. So this is Wendy -- so please go ahead, Michael. Did you have a follow-up?

I mean, it's kind of on the same lines, and I apologize for interrupting. But as you think about that, obviously, lower revenue on a high-margin base drives lower dropdown. Is there any way alongside that to bifurcate relative to EBITDA guidance, some of the investments you're making? So if we think about the baseline EBITDA bridge from '25, how much of the reduction year-over-year is, call it, offensive making investments versus defensive absorbing these new economics?

Yes. If you look at where -- so we haven't guided to any specific line item. But if you kind of think about what we're trying to let you back into, as you know, the lapping impacts, right? I mean, you can see it last year. You know we had Rite in -- Rite Aid in for a little bit better than half the year.

We talked about the other programs that I think during Q2. So you can kind of understand that, that was a meaningful lap. And then I would say it's roughly orders of magnitude. The other, call it, half-ish is related to some elective decisions to be aggressive to stabilize over the long term.

Jailendra Singh, Truist.

This is Payton Engdahl on for Jailendra Singh. I just wanted to talk on the pharma budget spending environment.

So there's been some pharma services and HCIT companies that have talked about the pharma clients' budget deployment is increasingly being released in like smaller, more phased increments. And I was just curious on if you've seen any impact on like the size, duration or ramp time of the new pharma direct programs? And then if that's influencing your visibility?

Laura and I, I think we will take that one in tandem, Payton. I would just start by saying a broader observation from my seat, and Laura can certainly follow up with more specific observations given she has the ongoing relationships with our pharma partners. I mean, one notable observation this year has been actually a little bit to the contrary of what you pointed out, which is more of the spending has kind of been pulled forward in our sales cycle, which was a different experience for us historically. But beyond that, let me let Laura jump in with maybe some more specific examples of what she sees as a broader trend.

Yes. Thank you for the question. So we are seeing some of that budget being pulled forward this year, whereas last year, there were a few key partners who were booking quarterly. Now they're booking earlier in the year, in fact, 2026. But broadly, I would say pharmaceutical manufacturer budgets, especially on the direct-to-consumer side, we're seeing them continue to invest in these types of programs where they're going direct to patients, they're going through partners like us as well as building their own solutions.

We are seeing some trends on the HCP side, where those budgets were a little bit soft earlier in the year, but those are opening up as well. So I would say a little bit different than the comment that you made, but we're certainly seeing those budgets pretty healthy this year.

And just one other reference for you, Payton, that may be somewhat helpful. I mean, our bookings in Pharma Direct as a percentage of our overall plan, they're up relative to at the same point in time last year.

So again, kind of pointing to more being pulled forward. But if that gives you any more confidence, it certainly has bolstered our confidence and why we continue to lean so heavily into Pharma Direct.

Lisa Gill, JPMorgan.

Wendy, I just want to understand a few things a little bit better when I think about the business right now. So one, a lot of your comments today were talking about the manufacturing direct. Are we talking about a specific business model change here? What do you think about the future of your legacy business? At our conference, you talked about the relationship with Surescripts and the opportunity to really capture that patient when they're with the provider.

Are you not seeing the benefit that you anticipated? You're talking a lot about direct-to-consumer. I just want to think about how you're thinking about the future of this business. And I heard you talk about '26 is kind of this transition year, but how do we think about it longer term and the key elements of what GoodRx will look like?

Yes. Lisa, thank you for the question. Look, let me start by saying the core and what we largely refer to as Rx Marketplace, it will always be foundational to our business. The manner in which consumers transact at pharmacies, I don't see going away. But unquestionably, since this company's inception, that model has evolved vastly from the manner in which we largely contracted with pharmacies through PBM relationships.

And while many of those still exist, we've had to pivot to direct relationships with pharmacies in order to ensure that, candidly, margins were fair for our pharmacy partners amongst other things, and it returned a greater degree of control to us. But we're also being as intellectually honest as we can about what we see in the broader market.

And there's no question that as the cash base has become more competitive, that space has become more pressured. I stand behind the notion that we are and will continue to be the number one drug affordability marketplace for consumers. But the reality of where we are at this point in time with consumers wanting more direct experiences, pharma leaning into it, payers supporting that model, the regulatory environment pointing more towards consumer direct programs, we would be remiss to not take advantage of that opportunity. And candidly, that margin is also more durable and more appreciated by the public market. And so we see our ability to be successful there as an inflection point for us as a business.

And so that is why you are hearing me say that over the longer term, Pharma Direct, coupled with Employer Direct, those programs, those brand programs will continue to feed those retail relationships. Will that core legacy business continue to be part of the flywheel that powers that? Absolutely. We know that the basket of drugs that historically are filled in the US do tend to be primarily generic.

However, those drugs that tend to hurt your out-of-pocket the most are brands. And so that is why we've got to focus on the smaller subset of drugs, and that does point to an evolution in our model, and that's what you heard us speak of here. That is why we're shifting where we're investing and leaning in more heavily to where we see the market going.

John Ransom, Raymond James.

Maybe this is for Chris. The way PTR used to work was it was about a $5 take rate on 100 million scripts. You mentioned it's down low -- mid-single digit on total revenue. So is the difference between the $500 million and what's coming, is that mostly a lower take rate? Or is there also some script degradation embedded in that as well?

Yes, there's not -- thanks, John. I appreciate the question. It's -- I think we're trying to stabilize the underlying volume of scripts, and that's reflected in how we're thinking about the flattening of that curve versus 14% down last year. I think sequentially quarter-over-quarter, relatively flat. But look, I think if you look back, the PTR per MAC was going up throughout the year, which reflects the power of what we were trying to accomplish.

And I think what we're trying to now say over the long term is let's -- that could and will continue going into the future. But I think for today, what we're saying is we're trying to renegotiate and think about our -- we shouldn't just say retail, across our entire supply chain up to pharma, everywhere, a more longer-term durable approach to making sure that the economics -- like we sit in a unique position between pharma's direct-to-consumer strategy.

We've got a platform, I think, to Lisa's prior question, where it's paramount that we have a retail footprint that's 70,000 stores where pharma can deliver its direct-to-consumer strategy across all of those retailers in a powerful way, in ways that brands make sense to be dispensed there, et cetera. And so -- and then similarly, the fact that we got Pharma Direct growing as it is and becoming a much more meaningful part of our revenue profile allows us to share brand economics with retailers. So there's a much more holistic approach than simply talking about take rate for us. It's a bidirectional flow of funds now that we think about across our ecosystem.

Okay. My follow-up for, I think, Wendy, is the company has been publicly saying, gosh, we would love to get to the finish line with Lilly. It looks like this is a perfect model for Lilly, but are they still -- they just like the Lilly Direct and they don't want to have any third-party intermediary? Or is there still some hope that maybe that can happen?

I'm going to start by saying we probably won't comment on any specific deal, John, but I would love for Laura to take that, who, again, joined us with a beautiful resume filled with relationships with pharma at the top, which candidly, I think we were missing in many instances, and it's one of the things that Laura and her team have done an exemplary job building out. So Laura, please take it.

Yes. Thank you for the question. I think to Wendy's point, not to comment specifically on any one partner, but to say broadly that pharmaceutical manufacturers are certainly looking at building their own direct-to-consumer experiences, whether that's through programs like Lilly Direct, AstraZeneca has one as well, Pfizer has one. There's several that we can list here. But very much also looking at where to meet patients where they are on other platforms.

I just came over from the Amazon Pharmacy team, obviously, now here at GoodRx, where we're building those types of solutions here as well where patients are already shopping for other pharmaceuticals.

So the idea that pharmaceutical manufacturers don't have to choose that they can deploy these resources to patients wherever that patient chooses to fill their prescription. And frankly, wherever they search for information about that prescription once a treatment decision has been made. They're working with us in order to, number one, get to those patients in a way that's comfortable for those patients, but also to learn about how to go direct. Manufacturers really are not set up well from a corporate perspective and a strategic perspective to go direct as almost a consumer-facing organization.

That's really not historically how they've gone to market. So we're very much at the early stages of how these companies will move through these direct-to-consumer models, and we're certainly taking -- really taking our cues from patients but also investing in this area to be able to grow alongside our pharmaceutical manufacturer partners.

John, I would also add before we move on to the next question, I mean, part of the dialogue that we continue to have with our pharma partners is really more one of, we understand if you have interest in your own direct program, but let us show you the data that we've proven out over and over on what it looks like for the average consumer to come looking for a brand price in our environment versus a broken out brand.com experience. And again, I don't want to suggest that those direct programs aren't effective. They are and can be. Having said that, the ability for a consumer to look for their entire basket of drugs inside an environment like GoodRx versus four or five different manufacturer programs with a different user experience, the data is just really irrefutable as to what that delta looks like, and it's meaningful.

And we share that information with our pharma partners to say, look, if you really want to have your own direct program, we can support that, too. We can also do that inside of our environment so the consumer doesn't have to click out or in and, in some instances, you might consider loading your brand opportunity just in our environment, and we see a much better outcome as a result of that. So that's what we continue to share with our pharma partners. And I think slowly but surely, that approach is starting to make more sense for our pharma partners. But there's no question that even a launch with cash approach is -- it's new.

It's novel. And it's something that I think historically, pharmaceutical manufacturers hadn't done much of.

Steven Valiquette, Mizuho.

So I guess for me, just thinking about the guidance, thinking just about potential margin pressure year-over-year. I think back of the envelope, maybe it's 400 basis points year-over-year. It could be higher, it could be a little bit lower. But really just trying to get a better sense of how much of that margin pressure may show up in gross margins versus higher SG&A as a percent of revs or perhaps higher R&D as well? Just trying to think about the -- from a modeling standpoint.

Yes. Thanks for the question, Steve. So yes, the cost of revenue is a little higher on -- just when you think about the mix of our business, think about it from a conditions -- our condition-specific subscriptions offering. I mean, that has an operating cost associated with it, think about like clinical visits and the like. So again, if you go back historically, I think if you look at the core business of the PTR line, it had a historically higher margin.

I think the Pharma Direct is a high grower, healthy margin profile, but that's diluted to higher core business margins over time. And I think these new offerings kind of have the same impact, still healthy margins, but a little bit dilutive to the historical margins on the core.

From an expense profile perspective, and look, the rationale of putting a floor on versus a range that if you just tied a margin percentage to the top line revs, we didn't want to be handcuffed to that. So we put a floor on it. There are some elective decisions we want to make. Wendy noted that we've got -- the subscription offerings are exceeding our expectations. We're rethinking subscriptions overall.

We've got some things that we're investing in on the Pharma Direct side. So we really wanted the ability to invest further if it makes sense. And I think Wendy also mentioned in her prepared remarks that our CAC is below industry standards, et cetera.

So look, we -- until we see a diminishing return, we may want to continue to push money in there. But I think we raised our EBITDA margin profile throughout last year. If you look at our expense profile, it will be down in absolute dollars. I think it will be relatively consistent, if not down a bit on a percentage of revenue basis, to your question. And I think we've proven, this team last year that we'll be good stewards of shareholder money and drive efficiency.

We'll continue to do that, but I think we'll make elective decisions to spend where appropriate.

Stan Berenshteyn, Wells Fargo.

Wendy, first on PTR, historically, 50% of MACs have been sourced by your -- by the top 10 HCP relationships you've had. Is there still a focus on that to drive the MAC volume? Or has your approach evolved at all?

Stan, can you clarify your question again? I'm sorry, I'm not quite following. One more time?

Yes. So historically, I believe 50% of the MACs on your platform have been sourced by the top 10 HCP relationships that you've had. Is there still a focus to drive MAC volume through HCPs? Or have you changed the strategy at all?

Yes. So Stan, I'm going to claim a little ignorance as it pertains to top 10 HCPs. I'm not sure what you're referencing there. I mean, we have, I think, like 1.2 or 1.3 HCPs that typically engage with us in any given fiscal year. So we're focused on a broad swath of HCPs, and those are largely driven by our manufacturer relationships and the NPI/prescribers that they have interest in and driving volume through.

Of course, generics is a much broader swath of HCPs, and we know that HCP recognition of GoodRx, I think we've got 85%, 90% HCP recognition of our brand. But beyond that, HCPs will continue to be an area of focus for us, largely, again, in partnership with pharma. Yes, some of our marketing efforts do point towards HCPs, but really, it's more driven by our partnerships with pharma to drive that recognition and utilization.

Okay. Great. And Chris, how should we think about your sales and marketing efforts in 2026? So maybe just like bifurcating this. So you have some pivots in your revenue strategy.

Are there any changes in how your sales and marketing is getting deployed? And then given the top line pressures this year, are you able to absorb some of that impact through continued reduction in sales and marketing intensity?

Yes. I appreciate the question. So in terms of sales and marketing efforts, as I said on one of the previous questions, look, we are -- we'll continue to redirect some of our overall marketing spend towards specific programs. And so there is -- obviously, there's a brand halo effect there, but we have a great marketing team led by Ryan Sullivan. We spend a lot of time together talking about key metrics and what we're seeing and how it's driving our overall business.

So we did bring down spend overall last year, I think, in terms of absolute spend.

I think it's -- the revenue drop, we did bring down the dollars, but it's still as a percentage of revenue, essentially in line with what we spent last year. But will we raise that? I mean, the answer is that's, again, one of the reasons we put a floor under EBITDA as opposed to a specific range is that we want the ability to be able to spend more as we see that opportunistically. And so I think largely, I think you'll continue to see us push more into the campaigns around our specific offerings. But hopefully, that answers your question.

Chris, I might just add. I mean, we do considerable review and discussion on a monthly basis as we really stare at the optimal ROAS profile of anywhere that we're spending marketing dollars, and we make shifts accordingly to ensure that we're sending dollars to really the highest ROAS opportunities. And if I could take a hot second to tout Ryan's expertise. He is one of the few CMOs that I've worked with over the years that is a truly data analytically driven individual that, in fact, is his background. So he's quite strong at really just taking the data to make sure that objectively, we're making the best decisions and trade-offs.

And to Chris' point, we did make some decisions to shift dollars, decrease dollars in certain buckets to point them towards our highest and most important strategic initiatives really coming out of '25 and into '26. And I think that -- I think strategically, the biggest decision shifts we made were largely coming out of Q4 in '25 when we launched our weight loss subscription offering and started seeing the early results and have made some decisions that comport with that in early '26 to keep pushing that vector.

George Hill, Deutsche Bank.

I guess, my first one would be, Wendy, is there anything that you guys feel like you can do increasingly on the generic side to kind of monetize that opportunity? I know that's kind of something that's been talked about and there's -- it's very clear with the vast majority of prescriptions coming. I'll pause for a quick follow-up.

Yes. I mean, look, we're never going to abandon certainly the generic focus because, to your point, I mean, from a volume perspective, that is the overwhelming number of fills that all of us as consumers look to fill. And oftentimes, that margin profile for retailers is quite favorable. So we know that is an incredibly important group of drugs for our retail partners. I think it really just comes down to engaging the consumer because most consumers have a mix of drugs.

With that comes a handful of brands and typically then more generics. So for me, it's less a question of how do we optimize the generic component in the mix.

It's more about how do we engage more consumers and how do we continue to work directly with retailers such that when whoever is standing at their counter is utilizing our program over somebody else's when they have an opportunity to access discounted cash pricing. So maybe said a little bit differently, George, I don't know if I think about it as much in terms of how do we optimize generics. It's more about how do we engage the consumer and then their basket of drugs really follows behind that.

No, that's super helpful. And I guess a quick follow-up is it seems like you guys have made an investment in price or price concessions this year in order to support volume. I guess how do we get comfortable thinking about the business longer term to kind of like this isn't a kind of a perpetual downward discussion that we're facing every year? And like I guess, how do you guys think about price stability in the business kind of in the medium term?

Yes. I think it's the right question, George. So as we said, I think there's -- these -- the two primary businesses today very much are interrelated in that they support each other. And I think if you look at the history of this company since its inception, the flow of dollars have kind of been one way, right? There's a transaction at retail where they collected an admin fee and they passed that back to us.

So the flow of dollars was one directional from retail to us. In the new environment and especially as Pharma Direct becomes a much more meaningful part of our business, it allows us to have brand economics to actually share it with retailers to ensure that they're making appropriate profits on the branded side, which they historically haven't been able to do.

And so I think absent that business and where one of the value propositions we have over our competitors is, I think absent that, you would continue to see pressure on generics at the counter. I think you would continue to see an erosion of admin fee. And I think what we're doing is taking a longer-term approach of a total relationship and a bidirectional flow of dollars between us. And so that the counter tools, the disintermediation and some of the race to the bottom on the admin fees that I think we've been experiencing, frankly, we're putting a floor under it. And we're using total economics from a relationship perspective.

So I think that the growth of pharma and the reason that we're highlighting it and emphasizing it so much is because it is the vehicle through which we put the floor under the retail side.

Brian Tanquilut, Jefferies.

This is Cameron on for Brian. I guess the question I had was, this is the second quarter you guys have called out a volume reduction and integrated savings programs. Can you unpack kind of like what's structural versus fixable there? And kind of what activity you're seeing from the PBMs that is kind of causing you -- whether this is a conscious shift away or not? Like what behaviors are causing this?

Yes. Thanks, Cameron. Appreciate it. Just to clarify, so we're not calling out a new volume reduction. We were referencing, for everybody's benefit, the headwind we faced in '25 relative to our initial projection, just so everybody could understand and keep it in context of the lapping impact of that as it relates to '26.

So there is no more -- there is no volume reduction. In fact, I think if you look at the MACs that were -- we said they'll be sequentially relatively flat. So you think about a 14% decliner year-over-year from '24 to '25. This year, it's relatively stable. There is a mild decline but call it going from 5.3% down to 5.2-ish, give or take, is kind of how we've modeled it throughout the year.

So relatively flat from a volume perspective. And frankly, we're seeing some early signs of positive volumes, it's just too early to call. We talked a lot last year about the things that were impacting volume. It wasn't just volume from partner programs, but we also were seeing macroeconomic factors of the retail price. I mean, the cost-plus pricing was, frankly, raising prices on the consumer.

I think benefits were really good last year. When you looked at the utilization rates the payers were disclosing, people were going on benefit. And so if you look at this year, one of the things we're watching very closely, again, too early to call, even though we're getting some good data early.

But unfortunately, for us, we're seeing unemployment increasing. We're seeing people -- regulatory changes impacting Medicare -- excuse me, Medicaid eligibility. ACA enrollment looks light by about 1 million lives. And I think we suspect we'll watch again very closely when those premiums come due without the subsidies, whether that results in maybe millions more of people not having insurance. And so that with the benefit profile this year, look, it's again too early to call, but I don't think -- I think our volumes are going to look relatively stable to slightly down, and we're going to watch for positive trends.

Yes. And if I could just add, Chris, specifically as it relates to ISP, as I think you've heard me comment before, while ISP is always going to be a metered product opportunity for us, just given the economic drivers inside of any PBM, I still contend that access to more commercial lives opens up additional volume possibilities for us as a discount card/cash partner. And the more the regulatory environment is pressing on payers to mandate integration of cash pricing, we contend that we're in a great position to take advantage of that, not the least of which is some recent notable comments from larger PBMs that GoodRx is their option to integrate cash pricing. So again, we don't do back handsprings around ISP. It is what it is, but we'll continue to add partnerships there and add commercial lives that have an opportunity to avail themselves of an integrated price offer when and if the payer wants to completely open up that pipe.

Allen Lutz, Bank of America.

One for Wendy. Can you talk a little bit -- there's been a lot of changes going on in the business. Can you talk a little bit about how the web traffic and app usage is evolving as some of the areas that you're focusing on is starting to evolve? You talked about getting 20% of Wegovy scripts through GoodRx. Maybe talk a little bit about what's driving the strong adoption there.

And then more broadly, you're shifting toward adding subscriptions for ED and hair loss. Can you talk about how the composition of your traffic is changing, if it is at all?

Let me start first with GLP-1s in general and specifically the goodness that we noted around the Wegovy pill, which I think is -- look, I think GLP-1s, first of all, are -- they're a bit unique. I don't think any of us who've been in and around pharmacy benefit for a good portion of our careers have seen any trends that quite follow what is happening with GLP-1s. And notably, just given they have incredibly low coverage for the indication of weight loss, different scenario as it pertains to diabetes, but as it pertains to weight loss, just a pretty low coverage threshold period. And so as such, you've got a really motivated population seeking competitive price points, which just lends itself beautifully to our marketplace.

Then you kind of leap forward to, again, in the same class, drugs that largely were injectable and suddenly you've got an oral formulation. And so all of those things kind of created this environment in which not only did you finally have a price point at $149 for that first dose that felt a little more achievable for the average American, then you also have this bolus of consumers that may have been on a compounded alternative given a more attractive price point who had a desire to be on an FDA-approved formulation.

And so our best guess is all of those vectors are what really fed a monumental uptick in the use of the Wegovy pill.

But even previous to that, before we had that type of price point available on our platform, those drugs have long been some of the top searched brand price points as consumers, again, were looking for value. Overall, our brand price page views are up as we think about this point in time year-over-year. And again, I do think, to be fair, a lot of that is driven by GLP-1 interest. I also would be a bit remiss to not give the regulatory environment a little bit of credit there. I do think all of the swirl around D2P and all of the conversation on drug pricing that's in the news, I do think it's serving to school consumers a bit to spend more time searching and looking for competitive price points in general.

I'm curious, Laura, if there's anything you would add, just given we talk about this a lot with our pharma partners because it's one of the reasons they work with us.

Yes, absolutely. I mean, I think the power of the launch of the Wegovy pill signaled certainly not just that manufacturers going forward -- I mean, specifically GLP-1 manufacturers, of course, but all manufacturers are really considering what an actual direct-to-patient cash offer is. Traditionally, frankly, manufacturers would think of this as almost a bridge to insurance. They were pretty temporary as part of a launch strategy, but not as a core part of their ongoing offering. And I think because, as Wendy said, we've really never seen anything like this with the degree of cash mix versus insurance that we've seen with these products.

And it's really paving the way for how manufacturers could be thinking about their brand strategies going forward. But certainly, it's also the backbone of how we might be thinking about an employer strategy where for patients who have gaps in their insurance or for products that may never make their way to a formulary, what do we do for those patients?

Well, we have a new offering where we can use a manufacturer net price where an employer potentially can help that patient buy down even more of those dollars. So there's more utility for these offerings than just on its face, what it means from a cash perspective.

Craig Hettenbach, Morgan Stanley.

This is Jay on for Craig Hettenbach. On Pharma Direct, how would you describe GoodRx's penetration of active brands with your current partners? Like how concentrated is that revenue across top brands? And how would you describe those budgets being durable through the cycle post the initial affordability push?

Yes. Thank you for the question. So right now, we have approximately 200 manufacturer partnerships. For the point-of-sale cash programs, we have about 100 of them. A lot of that volume right now from a dollar perspective is concentrated on the GLP-1s, but we are seeing growth in other brands as well.

And as we move forward, and I guess for context, about 100 brands in the pharmaceutical industry from a brand perspective make up the top 80% or so of most dispensed highest volume and the largest spend. And so we see a pretty typical distribution from that perspective from a spend perspective as well, both on the media side as well as on the point-of-sale cash side.

Daniel Grosslight, Citi.

I was hoping you could comment a little bit more on the uptake you're seeing in your new subscription offerings and how we should think about growth in those offerings in '26, particularly around weight loss and the introduction of more competition on the weight loss side of things. And then coupled with that, how does this inform your marketing spend, particularly around these new subscription offerings?

Yes, Daniel, thanks for the question. So just to unpack it a little bit. Obviously, as you know, we launched our condition-specific subscriptions in the back half of last year with weight loss not launching until late November. And I don't think -- I'll have to go back and check, but I don't think we pushed marketing dollars in until late December on that offering. And so a lot of that was really organic.

When you talk about the 285 million to 300 million hits on our pages, we get a lot of that organic adoption just from people naturally visiting. But I think the oral solids that are coming out on the weight loss side, I think, are attracting a lot of the previous compounders, people that were taking compounds because now they can take an FDA-approved drug in pill form. And I think that's -- we're seeing great adoption there.

So look, it's not a material number. If you look at the exit rate we had, I mean, you're talking about less than $1 million of revenue because it just, again, launched a month prior. But I can see that growing 4 times to 5 times as a run rate by December of '26, right? So it starts to become, while small today, an increasingly meaningful part of run rate revenue by the end of '26. I don't know how to think about it because you also have some seasonality in the weight loss and some other things, but you also have a lot of new drugs coming to market in this space.

There's a lot of different uses and indications for these drugs that I think they are going to increase adoption as well. And so there's a lot of tailwinds on that weight loss offering, I would say. So in terms of marketing dollars, we pushed a lot more of our marketing dollars to the condition-specific subs. It continue -- and it's also continuing to drive a halo effect on our brand generally. So as long as we keep monitoring those things, we'll continue to push dollars to support those programs. I mean, when you launch a new revenue stream like this and you've invested the way we have around some of these offerings, we'll continue to support the growth.

Yes. And I would just come in behind you here, Chris, to close this one out and say, look, a big component that will influence what happens with our subscriptions going forward, particularly related to weight loss are really where the pharma price points move throughout this year, not only is it a number of competitive molecules that will be coming out. But as prices naturally come down, this particular class of drugs kind of resets itself about every four to six weeks as something else comes out, a new formulation and/or price point change. But what we do have high confidence in is that as pharma thinks about the average consumer and how they want to access these medications, we know definitively that home delivery is not the only way in which consumers want to get these drugs.

And what we're offering pharma partners is, again, this broad swath of retail partnerships, which makes it a really attractive channel, particularly if you're looking to get it same day, and most people are pretty motivated to want to go get these drugs once they're prescribed a GLP-1, they're usually pretty anxious to get started. Therefore, we're seeing pretty high uptake just given the natural retail partnerships that we have. And lastly, I would say subscriptions for us, of course, goes well beyond the condition subscriptions. It also envelops our Gold offering. And we're spending considerable time rethinking what that should be in 2026, and we look forward to talking a bit more about kind of the reinvention of that aspect of our product offering in subsequent earnings calls.

Thank you. This does conclude the Q&A session and today's conference call. Thank you for participating, and you may now disconnect.