GoodRx Holdings Aktie

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' earnings conference call for the first quarter of 2026.

Joining me today are Wendy Barnes, our Chief Executive Officer, and Chris McGinnis, our Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, I'd like to remind everyone that this call will contain forward-looking statements.

All statements made on this call that do not relate to matters of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding management's plans, strategies, goals, and objectives, our market opportunity, and our anticipated financial performance.

Underlying trends in our business and industry, including ongoing changes in the pharmacy ecosystem, our value proposition, our long-term growth prospects, our direct and hybrid contracting approach, collaborations and partnerships with third parties, including our point-of-sale cash programs and our integrated savings program, our e-commerce strategy, and our capital allocation priorities.

These statements are neither promises nor guarantees but involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other important factors.

These factors, including the factors discussed in the Risk Factors section of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, could cause actual results, performance, or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements made on this call.

Any such forward-looking statements represent management's estimates as of the date of this call, and we disclaim any obligation to update these statements even if subsequent events cause our views to change.

In addition, we will be referencing certain non-GAAP metrics in today's remarks. We have reconciled each non-GAAP metric to the nearest GAAP metric in the company's earnings press release, which can be found on the overview page of our Investor Relations website, @investors.goodRx.com.

I'd also like to remind everyone that a replay of this call will become available there shortly as well.

With that, I'll turn it over to Wendy.

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

We delivered a strong first quarter with performance driven by continued momentum across our strategic growth priorities. We are seeing strength in revenue, disciplined execution on profitability, and healthy engagement across the platform.

Overall, we feel confident these results validate that the strategy we laid out last quarter is working and that we are building a sustainable value proposition designed to deliver resilient long-term growth.

That momentum is coming from the parts of the business we've been investing in. Pharma Direct continues to scale, supported by strong demand for manufacturer-sponsored pricing programs and continued momentum in GLP-1 access.

Our subscription offerings, led by GoodRx for weight loss, are growing and driving deeper consumer engagement.

Rx Marketplace is delivering performance in line with internal expectations, supported by the continued expansion of our e-commerce footprint and the strength of our direct contracting model.

At the same time, the broader health care environment is evolving in ways that align with our strategy and create meaningful opportunities for us to capture additional value.

Coverage gaps are widening, out-of-pocket costs remain elevated, more Americans are finding themselves uninsured, and consumers are demanding greater transparency in how medications are priced and accessed.

As a result, affordability is becoming a more central factor earlier in the patient journey, with consumers and providers actively evaluating cost before prescribing and filling, pharmaceutical manufacturers accelerating direct-to-consumer strategies, employers looking for new ways to support high-cost therapies, and pharmacies adapting to more transparent, digitally driven models of fulfillment.

As these dynamics evolve, how affordability is presented and experienced by consumers is becoming increasingly important, shaping not just awareness, but whether patients ultimately move forward with treatment.

GoodRx is well-positioned to respond to these changes. Over the past several years, we have been focused on evolving our platform from an affordability destination into a true access infrastructure.

We have built a digital storefront where consumers can easily understand pricing across generics and brands and access those options through a more integrated experience.

At the same time, we have developed the underlying capabilities that allow manufacturers to leverage our platform to deliver self-pay programs directly to consumers at scale.

This is expanding the role GoodRx plays in the prescription journey and positioning us to be at the center of how medications are evaluated, accessed, and filled.

With that, I'll walk through our business updates, starting with Pharma Direct.

GoodRx Pharma Direct continues to be a key growth engine for the business. In Q1, Pharma Direct saw 82% growth year-over-year, reflecting the continued expansion of manufacturer-sponsored pricing programs on our platform.

We now have more than 125 self-pay programs live, reinforcing the growing role GoodRx plays in enabling modern pharmaceutical access. A key driver of momentum in the quarter was our continued support of highly anticipated GLP-1 launches and expansions.

Since the start of the year, we have helped enable access to Ozempic Pill, Wegovy HD, Wegovy Pill, Boundeo, and Zepbound KwikPen.

To provide a sense of the scale we are driving, a third-party source indicates that we accounted for approximately 1/3 of all Wegovy Pill transactions in the first 2 months post-launch.

This reinforces the increasingly central role GoodRx plays in helping manufacturers bring therapies directly to the patients who need them with transparent pricing and broad pharmacy access from day 1.

Beyond GLP-1s, we are continuing to expand Pharma Direct across therapeutic areas and program types.

In the quarter, we announced a collaboration with Viatris to support savings availability for 17 of its established brand medications.

We also introduced significant discounts from Pfizer on more than 30 of its essential medications, spanning women's health, migraine, arthritis, and rare disease, made available through a dedicated Pfizer-branded storefront on GoodRx and on TrumpRx as part of our integration.

As these programs scale, our focus is shifting from launch to how affordability is surfaced and discovered by consumers. In response, we are developing new ways for manufacturers to engage patients on GoodRx.

Branded storefronts are a key example, providing a simple, trusted entry point for consumers.

Turning to explore a manufacturer's full portfolio of savings in one place. And when manufacturers leverage GoodRx as a channel, those programs are available across our nationwide pharmacy network, supporting broad consumer choice and convenient access.

We believe this model represents a more cohesive and consumer-friendly way to present affordability offerings at scale. We are also seeing encouraging traction from TrumpRx, where GoodRx enables pricing for many of the brands available on the platform.

Early data shows strong demand concentrated in GLP-1 therapies and, importantly, the volume appears to be incremental, expanding access to new patients rather than shifting existing demand.

That is a meaningful signal for manufacturers and reinforces the value of transparent pricing delivered through consumer channels.

Overall, Pharma Direct is evolving GoodRx beyond the pricing solution into a broader consumer access platform for pharmaceutical manufacturers, enabling them to reach patients directly, convert clinically appropriate demand, and deliver pricing seamlessly at the pharmacy counter.

Now diving into the Rx marketplace. In Q1, Rx Marketplace delivered steady prescription transaction performance that was in line with internal expectations, supported by continued operational execution across the business.

Monthly active consumers were flat quarter-over-quarter, reinforcing consistent engagement on the platform.

Following the significant expansion of our e-commerce retail network late last year, Q1 performance demonstrated the scalability of our model, with both order volume and total claims more than doubling quarter-over-quarter.

As more consumers seek convenient digital ways to access medication, expanding our e-commerce capabilities remains an important part of improving the GoodRx experience and capturing a greater share of the prescription journey.

At the same time, we continue to make progress on strategic initiatives designed to strengthen the long-term economics of the marketplace. This includes advancing direct retailer agreements.

We have direct contracts in place with 9 of our top 10 retail pharmacies nationwide, and are enhancing our pricing capabilities, including partnerships that enable pharma direct net pricing claims to be delivered directly at the pharmacy counter.

These initiatives improve the consumer experience, create operational efficiencies for retailers, and support healthier marketplace economics over time.

Turning to subscriptions, which is a key growth priority for the business.

In Q1, our subscription offerings continued to scale, and the number of subscription plans returned to year-over-year growth, driven by purposeful investment, growing consumer adoption, and continued expansion across our condition-specific programs.

We are seeing increasing engagement as more consumers choose GoodRx, not just for savings, but as a more integrated way to access and manage their care.

GoodRx for weight loss remains the primary driver of momentum within this category. Since our last call, we expanded the platform to support all available FDA-approved GLP-1 therapies, with the Wegovy pill performing particularly well since launching at the start of the year.

More broadly, our weight loss offering continues to demonstrate the value of the integrated experience we are building.

By combining clinical care, transparent self-pay pricing, and broad pharmacy availability, we are creating a seamless path for evaluation to therapy initiation, helping consumers easily start and stay on treatment.

Beyond weight loss, our ED and hair loss offerings continue to contribute to growth while also demonstrating the broader applicability of our subscription model across additional conditions.

Overall, we believe subscriptions are becoming a more meaningful part of how consumers engage with GoodRx and are strengthening our ability to build deeper, more recurring consumer relationships over time.

Combined with our Pharma Direct solutions, it also creates a strong foundation to extend our model into the employer channel.

Through GoodRx Employer Direct, self-insured employers can offer manufacturer-sponsored pricing to their employee populations and choose to directly subsidize the amount with employer contributions layered seamlessly on top of the manufacturer's approved price.

This creates a clear, reduced out-of-pocket cost for employees while giving employers a more flexible and predictable way to support high-impact therapies.

We are already seeing this model in practice through our work with Eli Lilly and Company on Zepbound KwikPens, which enables employers to subsidize Lilly's $449 price across all doses.

This is a clear example of how pharma direct pricing can be extended into the employer channel without requiring changes to the core benefit structure.

We are also extending our subscription offering into this channel. Employers can offer a customized version of GoodRx for weight loss, integrating clinical care, transparent pricing on FDA-approved therapies, and broad pharmacy availability into a single streamlined experience.

This approach allows employers to address coverage gaps without redesigning their core pharmacy benefit while delivering meaningful savings and improved access for employees.

I will now turn the call over to Chris to discuss Q1 results.

Thank you, Wendy, and good morning, everyone. For the first quarter, we delivered revenue of $194 million and adjusted EBITDA of $58.3 million, representing an adjusted EBITDA margin of 30%.

Looking at revenue in more detail, prescription transactions revenue was $113.7 million, down 24% year-over-year, reflecting the continued lapping impacts from 2025 as well as the unit economics pressure we previously discussed.

Importantly, volume trends stabilized with monthly active consumers flat sequentially at $5.3 million.

Pharma Direct revenue grew to $52.2 million, up 82% year-over-year, driven by strong momentum with manufacturer partnerships and continued expansion of our self-pay pricing, specifically with the successful launch of the Wegovy pill.

Pharma Direct delivered consistent sequential growth throughout 2025, which continued into the first quarter of 2026, supporting the year-over-year increase and reflecting the ongoing ramp of our consumer direct pricing offering.

Subscription revenue increased 16% year-over-year to $24.4 million, supported by the ongoing adoption of our condition-specific offerings.

For the full year 2026, we are raising our guidance and now expect revenue to be in the range of $765 million to $785 million and adjusted EBITDA to be at least $235 million.

While we expect continued pressure on prescription transactions revenue in 2026, our increase in guidance is driven primarily by stronger-than-expected performance in Pharma Direct as we continue to build momentum in our consumer direct pricing offering.

Consequently, we now expect Pharma Direct revenue to grow over 50% year-over-year. Subscription revenue is also expected to build throughout the year as our condition-specific programs continue to scale.

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

Thank you, Chris. Q1 was defined by execution, but more importantly, it was a quarter where we saw a clear validation of the strategy we're executing and the sustainable value proposition, we believe it creates.

We delivered strong performance in Pharma Direct, accelerated growth in subscriptions, and stable engagement in the Rx marketplace, reflecting progress against the priorities we outlined coming into the year.

Across the business, we are making it easier for consumers to access medications and navigate the prescription journey while creating value for manufacturers, employers, and pharmacy partners.

As the market continues to evolve, we believe this positions GoodRx to play a more central role in how patients evaluate affordability and access to treatment.

That momentum gives us confidence in the opportunity ahead, and we remain focused on disciplined execution as we continue to scale the business and drive durable long-term growth.

With that, I'll turn the call over to the operator for questions.

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

Maybe just one quick one first for Chris, so I can understand the change in guidance. It seems that Pharma Direct has gone up, I think this implied subscription has gone up.

What is the change in view, if any, on the PTR revenue base that's embedded in the new guidance?

Yes. Thank you, Michael, for the question. First of all, prescription transaction revenue met our internal expectations.

I know we didn't guide specifically to it, but I think when you look at the MAC sequentially, it was slightly up-rounded to flat, but slightly up quarter-over-quarter, and then the reflected unit economics that we talked about, I think it was largely in line.

Relative to the full-year guidance, I think being down in this 24% range is probably in line with how we thought about it. I would think about the year-over-year full year as about the same.

And then obviously, we're focused on the pharma Direct and the building momentum in our condition-specific subscriptions offering as well.

And so that leads me to my, I guess, follow-up second question is on that subscription side.

It's great to see the condition-specific growth playing out. We all know this to be a highly competitive market, with both established and fly-by-night players.

As you think about what's driving your improvement in the subscription base, what do you think it is that GoodRx is doing better, differently, that's allowing you to drive that improved stability?

Michael, it's Wendy. I'll start, and Chris, by all means, chime in if you've got additional thoughts. Look, I think it's a combination of a couple of things.

One, our brand recognition and consumer engagement have long positioned us as really the #1 digital drug pricing platform. So, that top-of-funnel connection we already have with consumers is, in fact, strong.

And when you tie that and point that back to conversations with pharma, where they look at the connectivity we have with consumers, that absolutely drives an engagement on the brand deals that they want to strike with us, which, of course, then feeds into the success of those subscription offerings.

Yes, you've got to have exceptional service in those programs, but you've also got to have competitive pricing on the drugs that those patients are seeking, in addition to potentially telemedicine.

I would also say our connectivity to a broad and unbiased retail network is a competitive advantage. We are not purposely launching these programs where you've got to use a specific home delivery provider.

But I would footnote, we're happy to support home delivery or retail. At the end of the day, it's really about consumer choice.

And so, when you think about those 3 elements, again, our connectivity on brand, NPS with prescribers, in addition to that vast retail network, we believe that is what gives us a competitive advantage and why we're finding success and also aligns to our reason for investing in the business when we originally outlined that thesis, I think, mid last year.

Anything you'd add, Chris?

Yes. I would say from a financial perspective, Michael, what I'm encouraged by is that we largely started to build momentum on the subscription offering without a lot of marketing dollars pushed in.

If you look year-over-year, we're actually down a little bit from Q1 from a marketing spend perspective. So that is reflective, I think, of Wendy's point about the volume of consumers that are visiting our platform organically, and we got a lot of tailwinds from that.

We're pushing marketing dollars. I expect to spend more dollars throughout the rest of the year on marketing and specifically towards our condition offerings.

So, I think we're encouraged by the early momentum we're building, and I think we'll continue to invest dollars there throughout the year.

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

This is Payton Engdahl on for Jailendra. I wanted to hit on the Surescripts' partnership you guys announced. It's been about like 5 months since that partnership was announced.

I was wondering if you could provide just an update on that, and also if that had led to any type of outperformance in the quarter.

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

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

And then I also just want to hit really quickly on the ISP. You guys noted some volume reduction in one of your integrated savings programs.

Just any color on that, that you could provide. And if this was the same ISP partner that you guys saw last year as well, the same issue. So any color would be helpful.

Yes. Thanks for the question. And for clarification, there's no volume reduction in 2026. Anything we've referenced is a volume reduction associated with 2025 in the past.

So, we are only referencing it as a comp relative to the lapping impact, and the year-over-year impact from the volume that was included in '25 is not recurring this year.

But so far this year, the ISP programs are performing consistently with our expectations, and the volume looks relatively stable.

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

Just a couple for me. This is a little tangential to what you do, but some other players who focus on manufacturers, particularly on the software side, have noticed a pause in their marketing spend, Novo being called out specifically.

What behavior, I mean obviously, your numbers didn't show any of that, but would you call out any changes in behavior as you're having dialogue with these folks in terms of how they're thinking about marketing spend and go-to-market, that either is a good guy or a bad guy?

John, good to hear from you. No, we're actually not seeing any impact. I would say quite the opposite.

I mean, having recently returned from Asembia, not that we're not engaged continually with these same partners, but obviously, that's a forum where you get to see everybody in the span of about 48 hours.

Feedback continues to be leaning in even more so, I would say, I think largely as a result of the success we've had to date. Laura, I believe, joined us for our last call, where she indicated that we're seeing success even earlier in the year than we had previously, and that a lot of that revenue was pulled forward that we typically book.

So far, we are demonstrating exceptional ROI for the dollars that pharma is investing with us.

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

John, I would say the first of all, the one thing to note is that our point-of-sale buydown programs are not a part of those marketing budgets.

So, that's not impacted in terms of what you may be seeing in the marketplace.

And the only dynamic I think that we really noted is Laura, who joined us last quarter, who's the President of our Pharma Direct businesses, noted that the number of deals was down a little bit, but the dollar amount of those deals was higher.

So net-net, we're up across the board across Pharma Direct. So we're seeing positive contribution from all aspects of that line of business.

And then just going back to the old core business, Rx Marketplace. I know it's been a slog, but are you implying at least stabilization in terms of transactions and monthly MAC and transactions subscriptions?

Do we look for that to stabilize and flatten? Or is there continued longer-term pressure there?

I think it's a great question, John. I appreciate it. So, I do believe that our MAC will, I would call it, flatten.

If you look back to last year, certainly with the impacts from the Rite Aid store closures and the ISP programs, other things we noted, we saw sequential declines.

As I noted in my prepared remarks, we're actually slightly up. It rounds to flat quarter-over-quarter. We've modeled in some continued erosion in MAC, but much more flatlined relative to last year's trajectory.

So, I do expect that to stay a little bit under pressure. But look, the start to the year was strong. It built some momentum, but I think we're taking a very conservative approach for the rest of the year.

I mean, we look at like CVS, for example, and clearly, they're on offense, taking share. I don't know what's going on with Walgreens anymore, but sorry, -- my dog is going crazy.

But if the retail marketplace continues to concentrate to the winners, is that neutral, flat, good for GoodRx, or is it not?

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

What I mean is that the stronger players in retail pharmacy are taking share from the weaker players. And so is that neutral positive to GoodRx or not?

I mean, I know the loss of Rite Aid was a bad guy, but let's assume the retail market stabilizes and the strong get stronger. How do you view that in terms of your position in the market?

I mean, look, in general, I would say we work with all of the top players. I mean, full disclosure, of course, we do have slightly different economics depending upon who the retail player is.

But all things in the aggregate, all of our retailer partners are quite happy with the profitability they're experiencing in partnership with us.

Again, you heard us talk through historically how we are prioritizing margin accretion to retailers with the direct deals that we've been striking. So, having said that, we, on the whole, in the aggregate, are somewhat indifferent to where our consumers choose to go.

Again, not to disregard the fact that, of course, we do have slightly different economics, but not materially so. Rite Aid was the outlier at the time, which, of course, was why the impact was, I think, so significant last year.

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

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

Chris, maybe I can ask this question for you. So obviously, we have the manufacturer-direct bucket, which is doing very well. We have the older PTR. And obviously, it's good to see that MAC is flattening out.

Subscriptions are growing. If we think about all those buckets together, and maybe think about what the total prescriptions processed by GoodRx were in the quarter?

And what was that growth year-over-year? And is it may be better for us because I know we've all been very focused on MAC and PTR? But as the model shifts, is it better to look at what our total prescriptions are that we are touching and processing?

And maybe if you can give us a sense for what that looks like and what growth has been, that would be helpful.

Thanks, Charles. Appreciate the question. I think it's a fair question to ask about additional metrics that we might point to.

We haven't disclosed the consolidated prescription transactions across the entire business. So, let us take that away and think through it a bit.

But I think part of your underlying point to the question is that if our business model works correctly, there is some cannibalization of our core business into pharma Direct.

And if you think about GLP-1s is a great example that last year, prior to the pharma-sponsored point-of-sale programs, retailers and consumers were paying full price, and that was clearly coming through our PTR line, and it had higher PTR per MAC, et cetera.

If those same consumers are getting that same prescription through now a point-of-sale buydown program, it shows up on the pharma Direct line.

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

And that would be great in the future. But do you have a sense right now whether, if you looked at all the prescriptions that you touched, regardless of what bucket was in, would you say that we're seeing growth? Are we seeing up slightly, flat?

Just curious, any commentary there? And then maybe one other would be a lot of other companies have called out weather impacting the first quarter, obviously, with a lot of the storms earlier in January and February.

Just curious if that had any impact in the quarter? And if you could size that for us.

Let me take your first one first. In terms of your first question, if you imply with our MAC count, which is largely driven by the prescription transactions revenue, that was flat, right?

And pharma Direct is growing. So, I think the implied impact is that our total prescription service on a consolidated basis is up overall. In terms of weather impacts, I mean, the flu season was a little bit longer and later than we thought. We didn't see really…

I can take that question. I mean, I will say, look, we track volume by geography just like a large retailer does.

And true to form, you're not wrong. Whenever there's a random storm, yes, on the whole, volumes dip, but you almost always see those recover in the following week.

So follows a similar cycle to pharmacies, if you will, in that regard, because that, of course, is where our consumers, in fact, get billed. But usually, if a consumer is motivated to get a prescription, they'll just then push it into the following week if they were unable to do it based on whatever natural event took place.

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

I guess for me, I just have a couple of quick confirmatory questions around the accounting and revenue recognition on the subscription side.

So just mathematically, the revenue per subscription is moving up from, call it, roughly $10 to $11.

And I'm wandering around the GLP-1s. Are you just booking the $39 per month for the unlimited online care in the subscription revenue? Just want to confirm that first, and that's why maybe that's why that's moving up. I just want to get more color on that first.

That is correct, Steven.

And then, as far as some of the other companies around booking the drug revenue, some of your peers are booking the compounded drug revenue on their P&L, but not the branded drug revenue.

So, I don't know if there's any clarification on that on your P&L one way or the other, and where that's showing up, if at all, but I just wanted to get just a quick confirmation on that as well.

It's helpful. Thank you. So as I said, the $39 you referenced, which is a monthly subscription fee, is hitting the subscription line.

To the extent it's going through our point-of-sale buy-down programs, you're seeing that portion of the revenue actually getting picked up in Pharma Direct.

It does not get grossed up treatment the way you're suggesting others do it, especially like the compounders. We don't do any compounding. We only deal with the FDA-approved drugs that are branded drugs on the Pharma Direct side. So we don't have any gross-up of the drugs included in our revenue.

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

So, maybe just to follow up on some of these discussions. When we think about the pull forward in Pharma Direct that you spoke about earlier, should we still expect sequential growth going forward this year in that?

And then, can you just give some more color on the growth in that space? Like when you think about or talk about the shift of claims and high cost branded from core to the Pharma Direct segment, like how much of this is actually affecting either line item?

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

This is Wendy. I'll take the second half of your question.

So, as we think about just a longer-term outlook and what does the runway looks like for Pharma Direct, look, in our ongoing conversations and partnerships with these same manufacturers, they truly are starting to view us as the best channel solution for engagements with patients.

So that continues to bolster our confidence in the pipeline of opportunity, not just this year, but well into the out years.

I mean, added to the wraparound regulatory environment, which would suggest there will be more motivation for manufacturers to strike direct-to-patient deals, no doubt, GLP-1s have been a significant component of the growth we've experienced this year.

But to be clear, there are a number of other GLP-1 molecules that we'll be launching. And outside of GLP-1s, we've continued to see material growth in our pharma Direct business. So, that continues to give us confidence that we're going to continue to see this line item grow.

Hence, our commentary on that being one of our key strategic growth drivers for the business.

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

Wendy, at the top of the call, you talked about 1/3 of all Wegovy Pill transactions in the first 2 months coming through GoodRx. I mean, congratulations on that. That's really, really strong.

Can you talk about the trajectory from launch to maybe the March exit rate or anything you're seeing early in April?

How should we think about the contributions from that over the course of the quarter? And then how are you thinking about contributions from that through the remainder of the year?

Sure. Well, I'll start maybe more philosophically, just saying that this is just an exceptional example of what a brand launch with a cash strategy or point-of-sale buydown can do in the market.

We have been partnering very closely with Novo on the timing, the PR tied to it, and the marketing elements. They, of course, owned their portion of what needed to happen, including embedding an EHR such that prescribers could see the doses of the pill to readily be able to write for it.

They had gotten well ahead of ensuring that supply was available so that pharmacies could, in fact, dispense the same medication.

And so all of those things tied together pointed to just an incredibly strong performance out of the gate. I will also say, I think there's something to be said for utilizing the same brand name that was used in their auto-injector.

So, there was consumer familiarity with just the brand name, which we can discount if you want, but we do think it made a meaningful difference. And how that program has continued to perform.

As we look into the future and how we're anticipating the performance of that drug, look, we don't see demand abating for GLP-1 therapies.

And so for that reason, we continue to be pretty bullish on its performance, of course, even amidst other molecules launching, which, of course, will provide more consumer choice.

And I think if the economics continue to hold the way most brands continue to launch, and then you end up with multisource brands, maybe pricing will come down further in the back half of the year.

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

And then one for Chris. As we think about the composition of revenue at GoodRx, a little bit less emphasis on PTR, a little bit more emphasis on subscribers, and the Pharma Direct business.

I guess, Chris, conceptually, as we think about where you're advertising and where you're spending marketing dollars, 2025 versus 2026, is there anything that's materially changing in terms of where those dollars are going? And would love to get a sense of if there are some of the early ones you've had there.

Thanks, Allen. Appreciate the question. We have pivoted our marketing budgets to me, more directed at our condition-specific subscription offering.

We believe that there continues to be a brand halo effect from that specific advertising.

So in the past, where our marketing dollars were more generally brand, we are targeting the subscription offering much more heavily in 2026 comparatively.

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

This is Jialin on for Greg Henck. I just want to follow up on the comment that PTR is in the down 24% range. I know it's early but just wondering if you can share any thoughts on the trends beyond 2026.

When you say like the lower unit economics in exchange for durability, is there like an expected timeline for when that process would bottom out?

Thanks. I appreciate the question. In terms of down 24%, I do think Q1 is probably in the range of how we think about the year-over-year comp for 2026 relative to 2025.

I think that when you think about macroeconomic trends, something we're watching closely with MAC being up sequentially, we've got early information, but obviously, we're dealing with 1 quarter, and we're thinking about how to think about that for the rest of the year.

We know there's a change in the macroeconomic environment relative to 2025.

You've got more people uninsured this year. You've got some underinsured. You've got Medicaid eligibility changes. You've got the subsidies for the ACA lives.

So, there are a lot of factors that we're watching pretty closely to try to understand what's going to happen to the business over 2026 and beyond.

But I think relative to like beyond 2026, we don't really have a lot of guidance for the longer term, but I think the business largely can flatten out throughout this year.

We'll watch our MAC pretty closely. And then as we get to the back half, we can start to provide some more color around how we think about 2027.

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

This is Luis on for Daniel. I know you described the TrumpRx platform as incremental to volume on a net basis, but can you give any details on what the economics of the partnership actually look like?

And would it represent a meaningful revenue opportunity? Or is it more strategic positioning?

Thanks for the question. This is Wendy. Look, we have been overt in commenting that most of the volume we're seeing come through, to be clear, is largely GLP-1s coming out of TrumpRx, and there are, of course, a number of other drugs that we support on that same platform.

But for now, our analysis would suggest, in fact, most of that volume is, in fact, incremental. There are new consumers on our platform who have previously not claimed with us.

From an economic perspective, just as a reiteration, I think we may have talked about this previously, these are actually our direct deals with pharma. So, we do not have a contractual relationship with TrumpRx, nor does anyone else.

It's just reflective of our pricing. And then in turn, when a consumer goes to choose said pricing, they're utilizing our same flow pricing economics that we have directly with the manufacturer.

So there is no distinction in the economic model for us. It is our brand point-of-sale deal, no different than if someone had come to us distinct and separate from TrumpRx, if that's helpful.

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

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

Sure. Happy to take that question and thank you for it. I think, similar to the question that may have been phrased a little differently earlier in the call, it largely has to do with where we sit in the ecosystem.

So one, we have the benefit of really being the top brand recognition for consumers when it comes to looking for drug pricing, whether it's through web or app, so effectively our digital assets.

We also have incredibly high NPS and brand recognition with prescribers, so they routinely use it in their workflow and in their conversations with patients.

Not only do they check GoodRx for themselves, but we also have a product whereby there's their own provider portal where we will present pricing to them in their unique environment, in addition to just how consumers engage with the platform.

Then, of course, you've got our connectivity to a really broad retail network. We do work with most retail pharmacies in the U.S. and some home delivery providers.

And when you stack up all of those things and think about consumers engaging with us routinely already for checking their basket of drugs in combination with being able to choose where they get fulfillment, and/or if they want to utilize our subscription offering, to your point, that really is a key differentiator compared to these other programs that aren't tapping into a broad retail network.

Sorry, did you have a follow-up there? Hopefully, that answers your question. It sounds like maybe you had a follow-up there, but we couldn't hear it if you did.

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

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 #1 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 TumpRx 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 2 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] And our first question is going to come from Michael Cherny with 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 3 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 2-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.

And our next question will come from Jailendra Singh with 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.

And our next question will come from 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 #1 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 U.S. 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.

And our next question will come from John Ransom with 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 4 or 5 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.

And our next question will come from Steven Valiquette with 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.

And our next question will come from Stan Berenshteyn with 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.

And the next question is going to come from George Hill with 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 [indiscernible] clearly 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 2 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.

And the next question is going to come from Brian Tanquilut with 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.

And the next question will come from Allen Lutz with 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.

And our next question is going to come from Craig Hettenbach with Morgan Stanley.

[indiscernible] 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.

And our next question is going to come from Daniel Grosslight with 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 4x to 5x 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 4 to 6 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.

Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Gill, and I head health care services here at JPMorgan. It's with great pleasure this afternoon that we have GoodRx. With us from GoodRx, we have CEO, Wendy Barnes; as well as CFO, Chris McGinnis.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to Wendy to get started.

Thank you so much. We appreciate you all coming this afternoon. Our format is more of a fireside chat format. And we've, of course, spent considerable time with Lisa. She knows our business well. And so we've got a number of topics we're hoping to cover today about the business between Chris and myself, and then we will have an additional guest join us towards the end. Lisa?

Perfect. I'm really excited to spend time with you guys. So let's start by talking about some of the major dynamics that are happening in the health benefits landscape. Many of you may have just watched Dr. Oz talking about many of these things, whether it's the reduction in ACA, changes to Medicaid coverage to the growing high-deductible plans that are in the market. How are these shifts changing consumer behavior? Historically, how do higher uninsured and underinsured rates impact GoodRx?

Thanks for the question. And unfortunately, I wish I would have had the benefit of hearing the presentation. Unfortunately, just given the timing of all of us, I didn't get to hear everything that they conveyed, but some of our colleagues were able to attend.

Look, generally speaking, we're still much like I'm guessing all of you are sorting through whether or not the ACA subsidies will, in fact, get through the Senate. I don't know in any way, shape or fashion, depending upon what the House pushed through. What we do know and what we believe we understand is that at a minimum, anything that does get extended will probably be only a portion of the former amount of dollars that were extended to these same individuals. And all of those do point to a greater population of individuals who, in fact, will be uninsured. And I would say part and parcel to that, Lisa, is even those that do have coverage, we see year-over-year more drugs that aren't covered. About 1 in 5 at this point continue to not be covered by most major commercial plans.

So as such, when you think about that dynamic, what that means is many of us, while insured, are a bit underinsured. And so that tends to push more people to utilizing cash.

And while we've shared with you before, perhaps the audience isn't as acutely aware, but about 90% of GoodRx users actually have insurance, which is often shocking for many individuals. So most actually do have coverage who utilize us. But be that as it may as more push-off benefit, we do think that, that will provide a tailwind for the business, Lisa.

More broadly, given the current administration's focus on drug affordability, and they did touch on this today. How does that fit into the value proposition that you're trying to bring to consumers? And I think a lot of what they talked about today is just that many times, it doesn't flow down to the consumer, even some of the price concessions, et cetera, that happened.

Yes. Well, while I will tell you a year ago, when I was, I think, a week in seat in role at this very conference, and we were having a similar conversation, I don't know that I would have anticipated the regulatory environment as it played out last year. I don't know that any of us could have.

Be that as it may, I think it's fair to say that you'd be hard-pressed to find an individual who doesn't believe that affordability of drugs and accessibility of drugs is the right thing to do for Americans and consumers. And that ironically or not, is our mission at GoodRx. So for that reason, we couldn't be more squarely aligned.

Having said that, policy really only gets you so far. Policy, while laudable, needs to be actionable. And the way in which you do that is partnering with businesses that can actually access the channel, work with pharma and candidly have history and depth in our ability to execute on those programs. And that's largely what we're doing given the history with our branded and manufacturer partnerships.

The conversation started today with that note exactly that this administration does believe in a public-private partnership and that the market should figure these things out that it should not be driven by Congress, but rather by the free markets, which is nice to hear after the former administration.

When I think about the Rx marketplace trends, as we head into '26, retail pharmacies are facing a challenging environment with store closures. We've seen this with Rite Aid going bankrupt, Walgreens and CVS closing stores, margin pressures, the evolving reimbursement models.

What are pharmacies looking for in a partnership today? And how does that backdrop shape GoodRx's business model and the role in the ecosystem going forward?

I appreciate the question. We have been, as a company, squarely fixated on enabling retailers from a margin perspective in addition to making them more nimble digitally with consumers. And so the manner in which we've done that, and if you've been following us at all, we've been squarely fixated on partnering directly with retailers. So we have shifted our model a bit whereby we work directly. We contract directly with retailers. At this point, 9 of the top 10, we hold paper with directly.

And why are we doing that? We're doing it such that we can convey additional margin their way. And as we think about the pharma programs that we just touched on and that our colleague here in the audience, Laura Jensen leads for us, we are able to then take that brand point-of-sale buy-down value, and we convey that to our vast pharmacy network, which is approximately 70,000 pharmacies or most of the pharmacies in the U.S.

So as pharmacies are struggling from a margin perspective and particularly around brands where they've lost money for the better part of a decade, those point-of-sale brand buy-down programs, they're now profitable on when they work with us directly.

So I would say margin and profitability is thing one. Efficiency is also incredibly important to them such that they're not wasting time at the counter on supporting actions that really should have already been taken care of in any other sophisticated e-commerce transaction. But for whatever reason, we can't seem to get it right in health care.

And so we're going to touch upon here a little bit towards the end when we introduce our additional guests, how we're enabling better efficiency at the counter as well. But margin is certainly top of mind for retailers.

In the last several quarters, we've talked about store closings, for example, Rite Aid and the store closings. How do we think about recapturing some of those scripts back into GoodRx as they've closed and people have shifted around. So maybe talk about some of those opportunities.

Sure. Do you want to start with that one?

I'm happy to. Good afternoon, everybody. The environment with the Rite Aid closing, the way that happened actually happened so quickly and unfolded, literally, I think they made their announcement, I think, later that week, actually, stores went dark. So we didn't have a real opportunity. We thought we would.

When you think about a typical bankruptcy process, we thought we'd have a little bit more time to work with our other retail partners. So if you think about the way a script is adjudicated, once the GoodRx information is on file at a retailer, we -- the next time a consumer goes in, they don't have to put that information in again. It's just a GoodRx script at that point, right? So those renewals and future scripts just get picked up.

When something like a Rite Aid happens and they just disappear, then we have to recapture. We have to rewin that script. We have to remarket them, which is fundamentally different than when we talk about what may be continuing to happen, which is a bit of a thinning of the herd of like Walgreens or CVS store closures.

If you close a -- pick a retailer, our script -- our information is still inside the same 4 walls of that company. So if you walk 2 blocks further to pick your same script up, it's still a GoodRx script. So we have to go out and recapture scripts at Rite Aid.

Look, the good -- the one thing I'd say about our company that excites me most is we're one of the few spots in all of health care where consumers actually choose to do business with us, right? There's not a lot of places in health care usually your benefits are handed to you. So we actually have a consumer base that's educated that's coming to our platform to look at, to access their medications in an affordable way. And we think they'll come back.

We have 300 million hits on our website a year, 30 million active subscribers. So it takes a little bit of time. And we can't empirically track it because that's not the way our systems work. But we think we recapture over time somewhere between 20% and 40% of those scripts, I would say, on average. So we work to do that, right?

So we actually do have active marketing campaigns. We'll work to do that. But I think the fact that those consumers came to our platform looking to solve a problem once in terms of accessing their medication, I think they'll continue to do so.

So when we think about -- not to pick on Rite Aid, but when we think about the file buys that went to some of the others, if you have a relationship with them, does that naturally convert that prescription to you? Is it more of, hey, Rite Aid was in locations that maybe they went to a supermarket or somewhere else to pick up the script and therefore, have to reengage with GoodRx?

Here's what I would say. It depends on how they brought the file buy over, whether or not they brought them adjudication information with it. But also the way it happened is you had people in real time, consumers made the choice before the file buy.

Because the stores went dark so quickly, people that wanted to get their script filled, they were either actively moving the script ahead of time or they were just showing up to a dark pharmacy saying, boy, I have to go to something different.

So I'm not sure how efficient the file buys were for those retailers who did buy the files. So it's not a direct correlation of, hey, they bought 500 files, those were ours, we have the 500 scripts. It just didn't work out that way given...

And Lisa, if I could add, we don't anticipate another Rite Aid-like event in 2026. I mean everything that our retailers are telling us at this point, there may be a thinning here or there, but I don't think we're going to see a recurrence of what we saw with Rite Aid in '25.

Yes, we don't either. I mean I think it was a little bit unusual. I think that we could go down the path of a lot of different things as we've all followed this industry for a long time that the government probably should have allowed Walgreens to buy all of Rite Aid, right? I mean they really put them in a difficult position.

So let's talk about subscription for a minute, though. Turning to subscriptions. You launched condition-based offerings like ED, hair loss, weight loss in '25. Can you maybe talk for a few minutes about how the early uptake around these programs has looked and how we should think about subscription contributions and growth going into '26?

Thank you for the question. This is certainly an area that we are excited about, not the least of which is the hundreds of millions of consumers who look to us for pricing, we feel like we do have a natural right to win when it comes to condition subscriptions.

Having said that, while we've seen a number of competitors get into this space, we wanted to be exceptionally thoughtful about what the experience would, in fact, be, which is why we started rather slowly in '25.

ED was May. Hair loss, I believe, was October. And then we did weight loss in November. And for us, it's really about a couple of things. One, making sure that you've got branded meaningful point-of-sale buy-downs that are available as part of and supportive inside these programs. Two, particularly as it pertains to weight loss, which I think most of us would agree is one of the largest opportunities for many in the health care ecosystem, particularly around GLP-1s, we were adamant that we were only going to support branded therapies, just given the number of non-FDA compounded offerings that existed in the market that made us candidly incredibly uncomfortable with the manner in which those were being conveyed.

And so you saw us really kind of wait to get into that space. And when we did, we did so in partnership with Novo with pricing that was industry leading. We announced that again with the Wegovy pill, I believe, last Monday at a price point of $149.

And so the idea is, let's build these subscription offerings such that they're benefiting pharmacies where they can actually make money on filling these drugs, where they can benefit the manufacturers such that their affordability programs are being conveyed in a meaningful manner and supported in a manner in which they had originally intended. And finally, that the consumer is benefiting from a price point that is actually materially better than they could get anywhere else.

So that's how we're thinking about it in '26. Obviously, we're we've not yet guided for '26. That will be more towards the end of February, at which point we hope to speak more meaningfully about how the programs have been performing. But generally, Lisa, we're very pleased with how they've been performing.

And do you see other conditions that kind of fit into that consumerism? I mean a lot of these that you talk about are either not covered on traditional insurance or have limited coverage. Are there other areas that you think would fit?

Undoubtedly, there are. We've yet to share where we're intending to go next. But I think naturally, those that follow condition subscriptions probably have a couple of guesses as to what would be next. But undoubtedly, there are many conditions for which the branded therapies are often not covered and those do lend themselves to good candidates.

A bright spot in '25 was manufacturing solutions, where you've grown that business. And I remember meeting you last year and spending time together here at the conference where you said, I'm really excited to be here because of all the pharma participation and the amount of BD that gets done here each year. So maybe if we can spend a few minutes just really talking about some of those relationships that you have, what's really driven the demand for your pharma solutions.

Sure. Gosh, this certainly is a bright spot in the business. Our manufacturer solutions are, in fact, driving the material amount of our growth, candidly. I couldn't be more pleased with how it performed in '25. I think we've been on record of saying it's upwards of 40% year-over-year at this point. We're anticipating another great year in manufacturer solutions.

As to what is continuing to fuel that, manufacturers are completely rethinking their commercial launch strategies. They're rethinking how they reach consumers. And when they contemplate a partner like GoodRx, they have the ability to immediately partner with someone who has the vast majority of consumer eyeballs looking for their price points. And so we have an activated consumer base.

And pointing back to the previous comment I made, most of whom, by the way, already have a prescription in hand, 85% already have a script. So they're an activated consumer looking to fill and they know that when they partner with GoodRx.

And so then you kind of layer on this regulatory environment that has fueled manufacturers to say, well, we have a window to really engage with D2P unlike ever before. We're getting a little bit of air cover from the administration such that maybe there won't be any type of consequence if we do both a point-of-sale cash and potentially work with payers, whereas I think this group is probably pretty clear as to how manufacturers historically think about things from a payer standpoint and contemplating more of that gross to net play that they have.

And so when they think about working with us and the fuel that is a very favorable D2P contemplation in this regulatory environment, GoodRx is a natural solution for a commercial partnership to put their drugs in market with the Wegovy pill probably being the most recent example of -- this is a new launch.

We're not talking about a field that has a ton of competitive NDCs. We're not talking about a late-stage product. Manufacturers that at this point are completely rethinking their new to therapy and their new launch contemplation saying, this might make sense with GoodRx as a partner. And so we're seeing that fuel more conversations.

We -- also, when we think about how it relates to how narrowing of formularies, growth of the cash pay market, direct-to-consumer strategy, how this is all influencing how the manufacturers spending, particularly for drugs that are not well covered by insurance.

You covered on -- you touched on this a little bit, but what are some of the programs that they're putting in place? How do we think about deeper participation by GoodRx and what it means for the consumer?

Yes. I mean I think you start with potentially a point-of-sale brand to buy-down. That's kind of the basic element of this. But what it can turn into is how are they thinking about actually extending it to more consumers? How do they want to push it out to all of the retailers that we work with, which again is a different way for a lot of these manufacturers to think as compared to perhaps their own direct program, which on the whole may be a partnership with 1 or 2 home delivery pharmacies.

So it's their ability to think through how they reach more consumers at the same time through a platform where those same consumers are already activated. They also think about the number of HCPs that already work with GoodRx. So we know about 1.4 million health care providers utilize GoodRx in any given year or on any given day. Our best data suggests 1 in 2 are utilizing GoodRx.

So we invested considerably last year in really our technology stack to better enable targeting of physicians to be able to partner with pharma to make sure that they can, in fact, target those particular NPIs for the disease states and molecules that they have best interest in. This is actually the first sales year that we're activating this technology. So the short answer is, we'll see, but we believe we have a strong right to win in the HCP space as well.

When we think about benefit solutions, we've talked a lot about ISP. Over the longer term, you've laid out a handful of drivers for uptake. But there have been some factors on the PBM side that have impacted that uptake. How have you performed in executing on those drivers and adding more to the growth in the near term versus others when we think about ISP?

Yes. No, we have -- we've talked a bit about ISP is originally intended. That is our Integrated Savings Program. And the original iteration of that product was working with and directly with PBMs such that we built the technology integration so that the GoodRx cash pricing would present alongside the funded price. So that is what the product was built to do, what it can, in fact, do.

But for all the reasons that I think most understand, in every instance where the cash price was, in fact, less expensive to the consumer from an out-of-pocket perspective compared to their funded price, it's not always presented to the consumer for reasons that the payer may benefit from not necessarily displaying that pricing.

So I think said differently, look, we will continue to work with PBMs. They continue to own the vast majority of commercial lives. We get access to those lives through our PBM partners. Having said that, the iteration of ISP is originally intended. We still want to realize that outcome. And the manner in which you do that can be a couple of ways, but a simple way to do so is also to work directly with employers.

And so I foreshadowed that a bit last year and said we were going to explore it, think about how to do it. I'm pleased to say we've now got a team in place that we're continuing to invest talent who knows how to do that. And we actually already have some employers live that we're working with. Beyond that, the way in which you realize your best comparison between cash and funded is to go further up funnel in the e-prescribing process, which hopefully we'll spend a little bit of time on today.

I think we will. Chris, can we talk a little bit about the EBITDA margins? You expanded them in '24 and '25. Are there further opportunities to expand margins from a cost discipline perspective in '26 or anything else we should keep in mind as we think about margins going into '26?

Yes. So Wendy and I are committed to being good stewards of shareholder money, right? And so we absolutely will continue to focus on cost discipline.

One of the things I'm proud of this year is we were able to launch the condition-based subscriptions and to facilitate some of the ability to sell into the NPI-specific HCP. And we did that very efficiently. We didn't have to -- we actually were able to cut costs, continue to focus.

And so this is as much an exercise of refining where we're spending dollars and cutting out some of the things that for a company like ours, there's 100 things we can go do, all of which may have a positive ROI, but it's all about how do you refine it and align it to your strategic initiatives and get -- and accomplish more. So we will absolutely do that.

I think that, again, we're not guiding yet. We'll get a little bit more into this. But I think we're probably in the range of the EBITDA margin that I see us longer term. I think there's probably short-term variability because as we'll talk about some of the key partnerships, we have to support certain things. I think given where the launch on our -- especially our weight loss subscription, which has been -- it's met our expectations. We won't get into numbers, but we may electively spend money that we free up next year to support some of those things and spend money on marketing and do other things to drive those initiatives. So...

For future growth.

For future growth. So we're focused on the long-term sort of target, which I think is probably in the range we're in. We may see variability based on some elective spend.

Well, today, we're going to shift gears, and we're going to talk about this new strategic partnership with Surescripts. For a while now, you've been talking about working on strategic partnerships, embedding yourself more fully into the health care ecosystem. You hedged on that announcement in prior quarters. So thank you so much for doing it here at JPMorgan. But I know that you have some exciting news to share. So...

We are thrilled to be announcing a partnership with Surescripts today. And I would be remiss without bringing up my CEO partner, Frank Harvey with Surescripts to come up so we can talk a little bit more about what it is we're doing. So welcome, Frank.

Frank, thank you so much for joining us here at JPMorgan. If you want to spend a minute, introduce yourself and share a little bit about you...

Sure. Frank Harvey, CEO of Surescripts. I've been in health care my entire career. I started out as a small-town community pharmacist in Lynchburg, Virginia and have been in life sciences for a number of years and then CEO of a number of companies, 3 -- 3.5 years ago taking over Surescripts as CEO.

Great. Well, welcome.

Sure. A few words about Surescripts, if you want?

That would be great.

Those of you that don't know, Surescripts sits -- we're pretty ubiquitous across health care. Nation's leading health information network, 28 billion transactions a year, 2.6 billion e-prescriptions a year, is the backbone of the e-prescribing network in the country. Every prescribing physician, every pharmacy, every health system, everybody that transacts clinical data in the U.S. utilizes Surescripts network.

So when we think about the rollout of this new opportunity called Script Corner, can you maybe just talk a little bit about that and the time line?

Sure. I'm glad to. We are really excited. First of all, to have a partnership with GoodRx, the impact that they've had in the nation, the loyalty they have from the millions of patients around the nation is just tremendous.

The partnership that Wendy and I have personally is we have a lot of passion around this, making sure it happens. Script Corner, price transparency is so important. It's so important to get that in the hands of the patient. So they understand what they're dealing with when they get in front of the pharmacy.

As a practicing pharmacy many -- pharmacist many years ago, I'll never forget the number of times patients came in, heard what their script was going to cost and then they would -- they couldn't afford it. They had to make choices, so they would just abandon it.

It's estimated that almost 1 billion scripts a year are abandoned in the U.S. And those are actually the most expensive scripts, not because of the price, but the most expensive script is the one that's never picked up, the one that's never taken by a patient because their disease state continues to worsen. So that's what we try to avoid.

And by getting that price transparency information in the hands of the patient right upfront when they can help make those right decisions is what's so important.

Can I describe it a little further? It could be helpful.

That would be great.

So this is really a -- it's a mobile-enabled web-friendly application, whereby in partnership with Surescripts, so participating physicians at the point of prescription writing.

So typically, when we're still in the office, if you're the patient, this will present as a secure text web link for you to opt into, at which point should you proceed, you will be presented with not only your funded price, you will be presented with your GoodRx price, you will be presented with other affordability programs that pharma conveys. And over time, Surescripts is going to add additional capability to this tool.

But said differently, this will give you the ability to see a comparison to your best cash price at all of the pharmacies that we participate with, which, again, largely are every pharmacy in the U.S. We believe consumers should have choice compared to your funded benefit. This truly from my seat, after 30 years in health care, has been something I have wanted to accomplish my entire career. This is something both as a health care professional, but also a consumer who gets very frustrated trying to fill prescriptions, even though I understand this business incredibly well.

This is what all of us want. We want transparency for patients to then make a choice. But if you step back from that, while that in and of itself, I find to be incredibly exciting, think about what this does for health systems and prescribers who otherwise are being burdened with trying to help patients understand a more affordable alternative. It's time they don't have to give.

If you think about pharma, trying to ensure that patients adhere to the brands or any drug rather that they manufacture that a prescriber wrote for then sometimes gets disintermediated the counter or left there. If you think about pharmacies that they don't have time for us to stand there and ask them repeated questions on a better price point or worse yet, to Frank's point, it is filled and then we abandon it because we can't afford it. All of those things are really taken care of in this product. And so you're bringing together, in my view, what all of us are asking for as consumers, and I'm just incredibly excited to see where this goes.

How do you think others in the pharmacy ecosystem will digest this news?

Well, I think they'll be very excited for a number of reasons. If you just look at the time that a pharmacist or a pharmacist staff spends with patients trying to explain why it's so expensive and what can they do and calling back the physician to see if there are other alternatives, that time will be eliminated.

For the health systems, getting patients on therapy as soon as possible and so important in preventing the disease progression and helping them overall. So we think it's going to be tremendously excited to a lot of the health systems. We started out -- in the announcement this morning, we said there are 2 health systems, one in Illinois, one in Texas. There's already a third in Ohio. As we talk to health systems, they're very excited about this because, one, they want their patients to be informed. They want patients to be able to make the best decisions for themselves as well. And having that transparency into the cost of the medication, we're going to see a higher percentage of patients that get on therapy and stay on therapy. And with the partnership, the opportunity to work with a company that is so loved around the country by patients is just tremendous.

So how do we think about like the financial profile of this relationship and what this means?

Yes. Well, what I will say, Lisa, is we're not going to share what our arrangement is and nor do we probably intend to guide toward anything specific when we do guide towards the end of February. But I'm viewing this as is Frank, I believe, is kind of a slow journey where we're going to be very careful about how the product works, how it interfaces with prescribers.

We want to make sure that we're not inadvertently creating abrasion and this needs to be patient-centered to convey this pricing side by side. So we're going to test and learn with some of these early systems. But unequivocally, and I think you guys may have provided the study, like 95% of prescribers have said that their patients very frequently either can't fill their prescription or ask them to change it to something less expensive.

And so I see no reason why folks will not get behind this over time. But we need to refine it. There's no question. This is -- I view pilot initially, but I have a hard time believing any health care system wouldn't say, yes, us too. We should participate.

So I understand who you're selling it to. So if I understand this correctly, it's being sold into the health system or into the physician office. And then from there, if I'm the consumer, I then click the link where I, as the individual consumer, can now see what my different pricing opportunities are based on my -- you'll have my insurance information as well as past information.

Very straightforward during the prescribing process. And that's one of the most important things that happens during the prescribing process right when the patient is making those decisions. If it's a participating health plan and participating therapeutic area and the patient -- the physician will automatically launch an SMS, text message will go out to the patient. The patient will have an opportunity to opt in.

Now not every patient is going to opt in. More and more over time will as they understand the benefit of it. But if the patient opts in, they'll then go to their personalized web page. They will have certain HIPAA things that they have to agree to. And then their specific benefit information, their specific price up to the second price at their cash price, manufacturer support programs, their price at their preferred pharmacy and prices at other sites of service will be presented to them, and then they can make that informed decision.

Now the physicians have had this technology through our product real-time prescription benefits. So they've been able to see this and many physicians will take the time and work with patients through this. But as under demand as the physicians and clinicians are, they just don't have time every time to do this with the patient. And so this really puts it in the patient's hands so they can be responsible for their own care, be responsible for managing their own dollar, if you will.

When I think about it from a competitive standpoint, are there others that do this in the marketplace today?

I'll see there are a lot of apps and things out there that try to focus on price transparency. There's no other in the market that at the time of prescribing when the patient -- that decision is being made, put that in the hand and then have the partnership and power of these 2 companies behind it to ensure that the patient does have the best option, the right cash price, the right benefit price and gets it right the first time.

When we do these types of discussions, we always like to think about bigger picture, right? So we're sitting here today. I sat the other last year. I think that there's probably some misunderstandings around GoodRx and who you truly are and the benefits that you bring to the consumer. Wendy, can you just spend some time thinking about what you really hope investors will better understand about GoodRx as we move into 2026?

Sure. I very much appreciate this question. Clearly, there's a lot that continues to be misunderstood about GoodRx. Look, if I'm sitting here 12 months from now, my aim would be a couple of things.

The first of which would be that investors clearly understand what portion of our revenue is driven by these partnerships with manufacturer solutions. It is a durable model that conveys real value.

Secondarily, that we're taking that value and we're sharing it across the ecosystem. So it's pushing back to partnerships with retail pharmacies. So in other words, our manufacturer solutions business is integrated with our Rx Marketplace that those 2 things are actually linked. And I think there's -- at present, there's a pretty nascent understanding of that. Additionally, I would want the market to understand that we have a meaningful business in our subscription condition business 12 months from now.

And lastly, I would want the market to better understand that from an employer perspective, given what we're doing with cash pricing that there absolutely is a real business and enabling a partnership alongside insurance at the employer level such that, again, with a relationship such as Surescripts, it's not an or when it comes to insurance and cash. It truly is an and, and it's something that all of us should demand to be able to see.

Great. Any closing comments?

Yes. If I could just make one comment on that. When we were building out Script Corner, we had to choose the right partner. And there are a number of options out there to choose. But when we looked at the loyalty that patients have and what -- as GoodRx has built that relationship, it was just no -- there was no other choice that really made sense. When we looked at what GoodRx was doing to reach out to retail pharmacy to create opportunities for retail pharmacy to make money on scripts that they could not fill profitably in the past, that made a huge difference to us. We really want to support the provider community, the pharmacy community. We felt like GoodRx is really making a huge effort to that, and they were the right partner for us in this program.

Great. I think that's it. Thank you so much for today. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the GoodRx Third Quarter 2025 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 third quarter 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 facts 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, 2024, and 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 would 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.

Q3 was a strong quarter of focused execution and measurable progress across each of our key strategic priorities. Since our last earnings call, we expanded our access and affordability programs with leading pharmaceutical manufacturers, including with Novo Nordisk to deliver direct-to-consumer cash prices for Ozempic and Wegovy and with Amgen for Repatha, among others. We strengthened our partnership with one of the nation's largest grocery retailers launching our RxSmartSaver counter solution at Kroger pharmacies nationwide, and we continue to invest in the strength of the GoodRx brand, launching our new Savings Wrangler campaign to reinforce that GoodRx is the most trusted and recognizable name in prescription access and affordability.

These initiatives demonstrate the strength of our platform and show how we're executing our strategy with speed, scale and purpose, delivering tangible value to consumers, pharmacies and manufacturers while positioning GoodRx for sustainable long-term growth.

I'm incredibly proud of the progress our teams delivered this quarter and of the strong foundation we're building for continued momentum ahead.

Before diving into business updates, I want to acknowledge the broader U.S. healthcare environment and how prescription drug pricing is undergoing a profound transformation. With the pending introduction of TrumpRx and the renewed focus on most favored nation or MFN pricing, the market is shifting decisively toward greater transparency and direct-to-consumer access.

We view this evolution as both an opportunity and a clear validation of our mission. We are actively engaged with the administration and HHS helping to inform policy efforts that expand access and affordability for all Americans. The GoodRx platform is designed to deliver on many of the same goals driving these initiatives, providing transparent consumer-direct pricing for medications at scale. We enable consumers to fill their prescriptions at nearly all pharmacies nationwide, so they can continue to work with their trusted pharmacists to manage all of their prescribed medications or get their prescriptions shipped via home delivery partners. This is a significant differentiator.

Many other affordability programs or new pricing initiatives are limited to select home delivery pharmacies, which can restrict access and slow adoption. With more than a decade of experience, deep relationships across the pharmacy ecosystem and proven operational capabilities, I believe GoodRx is uniquely positioned to lead the evolution of direct-to-consumer healthcare while also supporting the ambition of this administration. And while it's still early in the landscape continues to evolve, we believe these policy developments will ultimately be a long-term tailwind for GoodRx.

As the market shifts towards greater price transparency and consumer direct models, we'll be positioned to bring even more D2C cash pricing to our platform, expanding choice, access and savings for millions of Americans.

I also want to recognize the growing uncertainty around the future of health insurance coverage in the U.S. Changes to the Affordable Care Act marketplace subsidies and Medicaid support could lead to more Americans finding themselves uninsured or facing higher out-of-pocket costs. What is clear is that affordability will remain a pressing issue for millions of people. In this moment, GoodRx becomes even more essential and relevant to consumers and to the healthcare providers who are tasked with supporting their patients. Whether a patient is insured, underinsured or uninsured, we are here to help them access and afford the full range of prescriptions they need to stay healthy.

Turning to our third quarter performance. We delivered solid financial results driven by disciplined execution. While we're pleased with our overall momentum, we have continued to navigate industry headwinds that have modestly impacted our results. The ongoing and now complete Rite Aid store closures reduced prescription volume across certain geographies.

We are actively working to recapture displaced users, both through direct communications where available and in partnership with acquiring pharmacy retailers. But as we noted on the last call, this takes some time. As always, we remain focused on the long-term health and growth of the business and creating lasting value for our consumers, partners and shareholders alike.

Now let's dive into key business updates. Starting with Pharma Manufacturer Solutions, which we'll refer to as Manufacturer Solutions, we delivered strong results during the third quarter with 54% year-over-year revenue growth.

We continue to sell new brands and expand relationships with existing partners, reinforcing our position as the go-to partner for manufacturers seeking to improve access and affordability for patients. Our value proposition is clear. We deliver measurable results, proving strong ROI by helping manufacturers reach the right patients, drive adherence and remove barriers to treatment. This is why more brands are choosing to work with GoodRx and why our existing partners continue to deepen their investment with us.

As I mentioned earlier on the call, we see potentially strong tailwinds from the policy environment for Manufacturer Solutions. 3Initiatives like TrumpRx and potential most favored nation mandates are causing the pharmaceutical landscape to shift in meaningful ways as manufacturers face growing momentum and pressure to bring direct-to-consumer or D2C affordability programs to market.

Price transparency, brand access and patient affordability have become front and center priorities across the industry, and GoodRx continues to be uniquely positioned to be the solution that operationalizes these D2C strategies. We've already built the infrastructure, the partnerships and the trust to help manufacturers turn affordability commitments into reality.

A clear example of this is the collaboration with Novo Nordisk we announced in Q3 to offer both Ozempic and Wegovy at $499 per month. GLP-1s are a drug class that we see continuing to grow and be divisive with insurers in terms of coverage. With most Americans still not having these drugs covered by insurance for weight loss, GoodRx has a tremendous opportunity to help. By leveraging the unmatched reach and scale of the trusted GoodRx platform, we can more effectively meet the growing demand for GLP-1s and deliver savings directly to patients who need them.

We're incredibly excited about this partnership and look forward to expanding access to these savings through our subscription offering later this month. In October, we also announced a new partnership with Amgen to offer Repatha for nearly 60% off the retail pharmacy list price. Savings like this help patients overcome traditional insurance hurdles such as restrictive formularies and high deductibles that often delay or prevent treatment.

This further demonstrates how GoodRx is pioneering direct-to-consumer solutions that give brands a trusted, scalable channel to deliver real savings directly to patients. To date, we have over 200 brand affordability programs on our platform, nearly 80 of which are cash prices.

Looking ahead, we're investing further in our manufacturer solutions capabilities, expanding how we deliver a true end-to-end e-commerce model to the pharmaceutical industry. Today, we deliver affordability and access across channels, and we will continue to strengthen our ability to connect manufacturers not only with patients, but also with health care professionals who play an increasingly important role in driving awareness and adoption of these programs. We expect these investments to continue fueling growth into 2026 and beyond.

Now turning to prescription marketplace. We continue to serve as a trusted ally to retail pharmacies, helping them improve profitability, reduce prescription abandonment and drive innovation in the prescription experience. As I've shared on past calls, we are focused on delivering this through pharmacy counter integrations, e-commerce experiences and direct contracting capabilities.

I'm proud of the progress we have made against this strategic priority in 2025, having launched multiple initiatives that are helping pharmacies streamline workflows, improve consumer engagement, lower cost to fill and expand their digital presence. For example, our e-commerce experience for retail pharmacies allows consumers to check inventory, validate prescriptions and pay online before picking up in store, giving them greater convenience while helping pharmacies reduce the cost to fill and eliminate administrative hurdles, so there's more time to engage with patients.

And we also launched CommunityLink, our new offering designed specifically for independent pharmacies, which offers a cost-plus pricing model that provides the retailer with predictable pricing and better economics. Since going live on July 1, we've been seeing positive momentum and are encouraged by the number of independent pharmacies that have directly contracted with us thus far.

In addition to these retail initiatives, we announced a new counter solution, Rx Smart Saver powered by GoodRx. Rx Smart Saver is a turnkey ready-to-deploy solution that brings medication affordability directly to the pharmacy counter, improving the patient experience while delivering stronger economics for the retail partner.

This solution is already being used by multiple retailers, including Kroger, who launched Rx Smart Saver at all of their pharmacies nationwide. This program gives their customers instant access to GoodRx savings when they are picking up their prescriptions, including co-pay cards and nearly 80 unique cash prices for brand medications that often aren't covered by insurance or have poor coverage. Patients simply use their smartphone to scan the code at the pharmacy counter, enter the Rx Smart Saver portal and then show the savings to the pharmacists during checkout to save on essential treatments.

Each prescription filled strengthens the savings flywheel. Pharma manufacturers gain greater visibility for their affordability programs and are able to extend their direct-to-consumer channel efforts. Pharmacies improve profitability and deepen patient relationships by lowering out-of-pocket costs and consumers gain more affordable access to the medications they need. We look forward to rolling out counter savings programs with additional retailers in the fourth quarter.

We also made progress expanding our subscription offering, launching GoodRx for hair loss. We're leveraging our e-commerce capabilities to create an integrated end-to-end digital experience that prioritizes affordability, convenience and trusted care. This offering provides men with clinically proven treatments that help slow hair loss and promote regrowth, all through a single seamless platform they can trust.

We expect to launch our third subscription offering for weight loss in the coming weeks, combining our GLP-1 savings programs with our trusted GoodRx brand to deliver a convenient, low-cost solution. As we continue to expand the reach and impact of our brand across the industry, we also know how important it is to stay top of mind for consumers.

Our new brand campaign, the Savings Wrangler, marks a pivotal moment in GoodRx's brand evolution, translating our mission into a bold, culturally resonant campaign. Building on our strong foundation of trust and credibility, the savings Wrangler taps into a familiar truth that navigating prescription prices can feel like the Wild West. This campaign is a scalable creative platform and long-term brand asset that we believe will help drive further growth, deepen consumer connection and reinforce GoodRx is the most trusted name in prescription savings.

Since launch, we've seen that key marketing metrics such as unaided awareness and GoodRx search volume are up across the board. We've made meaningful progress this quarter, strengthening our partnerships with manufacturers and pharmacies, expanding access and affordability for consumers and continuing to build on our trusted brand. We're executing with discipline and intent, and we're well positioned to meet the growing demand for transparency, affordability and access across the health care landscape.

We're also making good on our commitment to engage meaningfully in policy discussions that shape the future of drug pricing and patient access, ensuring GoodRx continues to be a trusted voice and strategic partner in advancing affordability solutions nationwide. I'm incredibly proud of what our teams have achieved and I am confident in the momentum we're carrying into the remainder of the year.

I will now turn the call over to Chris to discuss third quarter results.

Thank you, Wendy, and good morning, everyone.

For the third quarter, total revenue was $196 million, up approximately $1 million versus the prior year. Consistent with our expectations, prescription transaction revenue was down 9% versus the prior year. primarily driven by the impact of Rite Aid store closures, which are now complete and lower transaction volume in our integrated savings program with one of our PBM partners.

These factors also drove the decline in monthly active consumers, an outcome we anticipated and discussed on our last earnings call. As our business continues to evolve, we are reassessing this metric as a primary indicator of performance to ensure it aligns with how we measure growth and profitability.

Turning to Manufacturer Solutions. Revenue for the quarter was $43.4 million, representing growth of 54% compared to the prior year, reflecting strong execution and expansion across both new and existing brand partnerships. As we have previously discussed, Manufacturer Solutions has quarterly variability due to the nature of expected deal timing.

And during the third quarter, we closed several deals that were initially projected for the fourth quarter. Therefore, we believe the trend across the first 9 months of the year, which is up approximately 35% year-over-year, is a more accurate indication of underlying momentum and our expectations for the full year.

For the third quarter, adjusted EBITDA was $66.3 million, an increase of 2% versus the prior year, which constitutes an adjusted EBITDA margin of 33.8%. This marks an improvement of 50 basis points compared to the prior year and reflects our commitment to expanding margins through strong cost discipline and operational efficiency.

Our balance sheet remains strong, ending the third quarter with $273.5 million of cash on hand with about $80 million of unused capacity available under our revolving credit facility.

During the quarter, we repurchased approximately 13.4 million shares of our stock at an average price of $4.61 per share, totaling $61.6 million. At the end of the third quarter, approximately $81.4 million of capacity remained under our $450 million share repurchase program.

Turning now to our outlook for the remainder of the year. We are leaving our revenue guidance unchanged as we continue to expect full year revenue above prior year or at least $792 million. Fourth quarter revenue is now expected to decline sequentially from the third quarter, reflecting the acceleration of manufacturer solutions deals that closed earlier than originally anticipated.

Our full year adjusted EBITDA projections are also unchanged, which represent approximately 2% to 6% growth compared to 2024 with an adjusted EBITDA margin roughly in line with our year-to-date trend.

Overall, we delivered a solid financial performance this quarter, underscored by our strength of our manufacturing solutions offering, which, as I stated previously, we now project approximately 35% revenue growth in 2025.

Our leadership team remains committed to executing on strategic priorities and enhancing operational efficiency as demonstrated by the expected year-over-year increase in adjusted EBITDA. We believe our continued investment in these initiatives will drive sustainable, profitable growth while creating lasting value for consumers in the pharmacy ecosystem.

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

Thanks, Chris. As I approach my 1-year anniversary at GoodRx, I'm incredibly proud of how far we've come, and I'm even more excited about where we're headed.

Q3 was a solid quarter that showcased the power of our strategy in action, deepening partnerships with pharmacies, expanding affordability solutions with manufacturers and strengthening the GoodRx brand with consumers nationwide.

It also opened new opportunities for us to engage with the federal government as a key partner in the development of GoodRx, further reinforcing our role in advancing national affordability initiatives. Together, these efforts are building a more connected and sustainable health care ecosystem, one where consumers can access affordable medications, pharmacies can thrive and manufacturers can deliver real savings directly to patients.

We're executing from a position of strength with a trusted brand, a differentiated platform and a business model built for this moment in health care. The national focus on affordability and direct-to-consumer access plays directly to our capabilities, and we're well positioned to lead as the market continues to evolve.

As we look to the remainder of the year and into 2026, our priorities are clear: continue to expand partnerships across retail and pharma, accelerate digital and e-commerce innovation to simplify the consumer experience and invest in our brand and technology to deliver even greater value at scale.

With consumers facing higher out-of-pocket costs and shrinking insurance benefits, we anticipate a renewed shift toward cash pay prescriptions. We view these dynamics, combined with growing pharma investment and direct-to-consumer engagement as supportive of our long-term growth opportunity. We have built a powerful trusted platform that we're continuing to leverage in new and meaningful ways, which should ultimately drive sustainable growth and long-term stakeholder value.

Our mission has never been more relevant, and I'm deeply proud of our teams for the focus and innovation they bring to helping millions of Americans save time and money on their prescriptions.

I will now turn the call over to the operator for questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Lisa Gill from JPMorgan Chase.

Operator, this is a company.

We can't hear if Lisa is talking, we can't hear on our side.

Shall we move on to the next?

Sure. We'll come back to Lisa next if we can, if we can't get our audio to work.

Our next question comes from Michael Cherny from Leerink Partners.

Can you hear me?

We can. Mike.

Okay. Perfect. Congratulations, especially on the nice manufacturer solutions performance. Maybe if we can just start with PTR. I appreciate all the commentary that you had, Wendy, about the market and how the market is coming to the GoodRx model. Whether you've changed the metrics or not, how do you think about what a stabilizing PTR environment should look like? I'm not asking for '26 guidance, but more some of the dynamics about the continued shift towards more pricing transparency. How does that translate functionally into GoodRx's ability to win?

Yes. Michael, maybe I'll start and then let Wendy sort of come in on the back end.

I mean, look, this '25 in some respects, has been a bit of a perfect storm against the cash market. I mean, specifically with respect to us, I mean, you got Rite Aid and ISP, which we talked about. But then the macro conditions really are around a couple of things. One, the change in the reimbursement models at retail. I mean, it had the unfortunate impact of just raising prices on the consumer. And when you couple that with what we're seeing out of the payers, which is high utilization, a good benefit profile this year. I mean, look, we've been clear that we believe we're a supplement to insurance and people -- everybody in America that's insured or not should come to us and check the cash price against other payer options. And we think people are going back on benefit in '25. So -- when we think about the trends going forward, the '26 trends, it's -- from a macro perspective, it looks like there will be a potential for a lot more people that are uninsured due to a variety of factors.

Although the data suggests that the benefit profile won't be as good going into '26. I mean we look at the CMS premiums on the Part D side, up 33%, depending on what you believe around the subsidies and how this gets negotiated on the government shutdown. Out-of-pocket costs are estimated to be somewhere between 25% and 100% increases for those that are covered. So there are a lot of factors as we go into '26 that we think really sort of reversed course from '25 to '26 and put a tailwind at our back, around the number of scripts in the cash market itself. So -- and I think we're well positioned to win more than our fair share of the market as it returns to an expanding market.

Michael, it's Wendy. I would just add, in addition to the trends that Chris called out that to reaffirm, we do believe should be tailwinds. We're then also focused on a strategic priority that you've heard us talk about a couple of times in truly owning that pharmacy counter and that consumer journey. And the more retailers that we partner with in that capacity then also allow us to capture more when the consumer is actually standing at that counter.

So you combine both what we believe should be an expansion of Cash RXs in 2026 with a greater presence at that counter, and we do believe that helps us reverse this trend, if you will, that we're seeing in '25. But I would also be remiss without pointing out we do believe that overall, for us as a company, we are going to see a greater proportion of our revenue be attributed to manufacturer solutions. I think that is a fair observation and one actually that we are focused on. We think that is the right direction for us as a company. But I wouldn't say that it's going to come at the expense of our core growth. It's just simply going to become a larger component of our overall revenue mix.

That's helpful. And maybe just sticking on manufacturer solutions. You have a number of companies that you compete against. Obviously, different companies have different definitions of what they do for manufacturer solutions. As you think about your strategic positioning, where do you feel like you have the best opportunity to win against various different peers from here?

That's a good question. I mean I will say, to your point, there are a lot of different ways in which competitors play with manufacturers. I think I would start with the just broad affordability program definition, which is when manufacturers are thinking about conveying a cash price at point of sale, we have the #1 digital prescription marketplace for pricing. Therefore, they know that in partnering with us through us on our site, embedded in whatever fashion they determine to do so, they're automatically getting connected to the largest set of eyeballs where Americans are coming to check their pricing. So that for me is kind of thing one from a competitive advantage.

I think part 2 is we've now demonstrated over multiple years in our manufacturer solutions business that we are delivering an outsized ROI to these manufacturers. And so as a result, they're seeing the new Rx, the refills, they're seeing the connectivity to the HCPs that are prescribing their medications. Again, we also know we are the #1 utilized drug marketplace by prescribers as well. You combine those 2 things, and I believe that is where we candidly have a distinct advantage against competitors.

Our next question comes from Daniel Grosslight from Citi.

There's been a lot of chatter about PBMs moving from the traditional rebate model to offering lower prices at the point of sale, which actually seems to have some legs now given Cigna's recent announcement. So Wendy, Chris, you both have deep experience at PBMs. I'd love just to get your thoughts on the evolution of the PBM model, potential employer receptivity to that shift in rebates to point-of-sale discounts and how this impacts your strategy going forward?

Yes, I appreciate the question. Look, I think it's a combination of meeting the moment, if you will. Clearly, there's a lot of regulatory pressure on payers to contemplate a clear model at point of sale. But candidly, they've had the opportunity to convey this type of pricing for some time. And we, of course, have been integrated with the top PBMs through our integrated savings program for some time as well, giving them the ability to compare cash to funded price. Be that as it may, the notion of pushing rebate to the point-of-sale discount, if you will, candidly, it's nothing new. We actually applaud it. I mean if it's going to underscore more affordability for Americans at the counter, we are all in. And given how we already partner with the top payers, particularly the one that you mentioned in your question, we largely are that cash engine behind how they're providing that comparative pricing.

So we feel like we're well positioned to take advantage as more payers embrace what I would call a more open aperture of what already exists.

And whether or not they're doing that based upon regulatory pressure or pressure from their clients, we're somewhat indifferent because we think it's the right answer to be able to have cash always present at the point of sale. I think Chris mentioned it in his opening question, we view ourselves as a complement to insurance. It should really always be an and, not an or, and this just puts more in the wind column for that and in my view. Chris, is there anything you'd add?

Yes. I would start by just echoing that I applaud them for doing it. This is a challenging thing for them to do, a bold move, but I think it ultimately at the end of the day, the right move. It shows that they're listening to not only the administration, but others in the ecosystem. And so when I saw the press release, I think about ISP and the original sort of strategic intent behind that program was to sit inside a PBM who had access to benefit profile and could automate what I think consumers should be doing anyway, which is look at the on-benefit price versus off benefit.

Now I don't think that program has worked the way we intended. But when I read the press release from a company like Cigna, they -- it was a press release we could have written, right? And the fact that they wanted -- they're talking about bringing down consumer pricing and price transparency. That's been our mission for 1.5 decades at GoodRx. And so that's not an immediate benefit to us, but I think because their program doesn't start until 2027 and they'll phase it in. But I think over the longer term, that aligns with our core mission. I couldn't be happier that they're doing it. And I think it invigorates some of the products that we've already put out in the marketplace.

Yes. Yes, makes sense. And then I would love to just get a little bit more detail on how you intend to work with TrumpRx. Would it be something like a link to the GoodRx website? Would you be directly integrated with a potential TrumpRx website? There's been a lot of chatter about others like Markin's cost plus doing a similar kind of integration with TrumpRx. So I'd love to just get your thoughts on how this will actually be operationalized and how GoodRx and other lower cash pay companies could also work with TrumpRx and you guys?

Look, first of all, I appreciate the question. You're not wrong in that I think there are a lot of stories floating around on what it is or what it isn't. I would start by saying we are in active engagement with HHS and the team that is actually building out this website, as in architects to architects, engineers to engineers, on how we integrate from an API perspective, and we intend to do so. So we will be a partner and participating in TrumpRx.

But for clarity, and then backing up where I think some of the misinformation continues to circulate, is that TrumpRx is really functioning as just a repository of pricing. So think about it as reflecting the partnerships that are integrated into it and displaying said pricing. So think about it as like a Panfinder tool, but for effectively pharmacy pricing. And we believe, just given the expansive nature of the pricing that already exists through GoodRx and the 60-plus thousand pharmacies that we work with, when you think about how GoodRx will show up in that environment compared to perhaps one of the much smaller competitors that you just mentioned in your question and/or others, we feel like we're really well positioned to take advantage of whatever opportunity that presents for us.

They have an ambition to launch in early January. I don't know whether they will or not. But if they do, we'll be well-positioned to take advantage whenever that goes live.

I would also say that given our deep pharma relationships, they, too, even in the deals that they're striking with the administration, are then engaged with us, for the most part, suggesting that same pricing will be deep-linked to us. And in many instances, we are the conduit for that pricing for that manufacturer. That's not how all of those relationships will work. But generally speaking, if you think about TumpRx displaying a pricing, they're not a fulfillment opportunity. They're not going to function as a pharmacy. They're not going to contract directly with pharmacies. It will need to go through a third party, such as ourselves, to facilitate that cash transaction, and we believe we are really in an excellent position to take advantage of whatever this turns out to be in 2026.

Our next question comes from Lisa Gill from JPMorgan.

Wendy and Chris, sorry for that technical difficulty on my side. Wendy, I just really want to go back to the comment that you and Chris made around ISP and the evolving market around ISP, what the original intent was, your comments around how you see the PBM market evolving and changing. Do you see a new product coming to market? Do you see that you change what ISP looks like in some way? How do I think about that market and that market opportunity going forward?

Yes. I would say the original thesis, Lisa, and the way ISP was designed to begin with, that still holds. I think the difference is PBMs are rethinking perhaps the ubiquitousness of the product itself, and how supportive they are of opening it up to their client book. I mean, as originally designed, it's precisely what PBMs are talking about today. I think there's an added difference now, of course, with more brands in the mix compared to perhaps when that product originally launched, and it was largely focused on generics only. So now you've got an even broader opportunity for brands that aren't covered, 80 of which we already have point-of-sale discounts on.

And so that allows a PBM with their litany of clients to say, "Hey, even if you can't afford to cover this on benefit, you can have this wrapped in program whereby at a minimum, you're getting access to deeply discounted cash pricing and it's largely seamless at point of sale. Now, having said all of that, I still think in parallel, there is an opportunity largely because these employers, coalitions, and broader groups are coming to us saying, hey, we may have interest too, and contemplating just our own carve-out cash list, and could we perhaps do that directly with you, GoodRx.

That is of interest to us. And you've heard us mention that we have been thinking through what that strategy should be. And you'll hear us outline that in more detail, Lisa, in our 2026 plan. But the short answer is, yes, that will be an and on top of ISP.

Lisa, I might just add, like it's an interesting question, one we could probably go on for a while about, because when you think about the nature of the PBMs, the sort of the way you framed the question, PBMs are selling this to businesses, right? They're selling it to payers who have to make a decision, the way I understood their announcement around ultimately in the out years, whether they want to opt in or out of the program, meaning whether they want to keep the rebate as a part of their broader pool of money to keep premiums down or whether they want to pass that through to their ultimate patients. For us, so that's a business decision for a payer to make. We want to participate more upstream in the Rx journey. We want to get into the physician's office. We're thinking through strategic initiatives to make this a consumer choice ultimately, right, where it's not necessarily light on. So PBMs will always be a critical partner, but we are always focused on consumer choice as opposed to payer choice.

I know you're not prepared to talk about 2026 at this point. But Chris, as we think about modeling, is there anything that we need to keep in mind from either a headwind or tailwind? If I think about Rite Aid, I would expect that you'll anniversary that as we go into 2026. Wendy has talked about the opportunity, whether it's ACA, Medicaid, less insured people. Like, just anything that we should be thinking about as we start modeling for '26?

Yes, you've highlighted--- We obviously have some headwinds and some revenue that occurred in 2025 that will not repeat in 2026. So we have to lap some comps, there will be a clear headwind. That's not an immaterial number when you think about ISP, when you think about more than half the year of Rite Aid being in, but look, we've got a lot of things that we're thinking through and assessing that I kind of highlighted earlier around 2026 and some of the opportunity we think it presents.

Our intention is to overcome those headwinds. So I don't want to get into '26 guidance. But in terms of color, we intend to overcome the headwinds that we're faced with.

Lisa, if I may just coming in, Chris, quickly on that. I would say the opportunity set that are the strategic initiatives that we're shaping up for '26, they're meaningful. We're purposely not outlining those here. Candidly, we're still kind of -- we're modeling what we think they're actually worth, and we want to get it right when we share that with you and others. And so for that reason, you'll hear us do that on our next call. But I'm pleased with the way the strategic list of opportunities are framing up for '26 thus far.

Our next question comes from Jailendra Singh from Truist Securities.

So my first question is around -- you guys have talked about building capabilities to better serve HCP within your PMS business, including rolling out products similar to those already in the market. Can you update us on the progress there? Any early learnings you can share as you continue to evaluate ways to further deepen your relationship with HCP?

Thank you for the question. You're right. Yes, we have talked a little bit about the technological capabilities that we invested in this year meaningfully to be able to set ourselves up for a strong 2026 selling season, specifically aimed at how pharma partners with and focuses on specific HCP and of course, those affiliated NTIs. I will say in the early innings, it's looking promising.

You'll hear us talk about that as well when we provide '26 guidance. I would say we're well positioned to take advantage of that. And I'm thankful that the investment that we made to prepare for this '26 selling season remained on track. In fact, it was ahead of schedule such that it largely set up our manufacturer solutions team where that HCP sales arm resides to hit the ground running because obviously, this is a big setup to what the '26 selling season looks like. We're deep in RFP season as we speak. So too early for me to outline specific results. I would just tell you that we're well positioned, and I think it sits where we would have presumed we would have been per plan.

Okay. And then my follow-up, I actually want to follow up on the timing of certain manufacturer deals you talked about, which kind of impact Q3 versus Q4. Can you elaborate on that? Is it possible to quantify the impact of this shift? Are these deals like onetime in nature? And isn't Q4 generally a seasonally stronger quarter for PMS? Just trying to better understand the messaging on Q3 versus Q4 for the PMS business.

Yes. I mean, look, this time of year, pharma spends up at times. And so we had some of these deals baked in and it just -- it was accelerated some of those deals. I don't want to get into the sizing it at all. I just think it's -- they're not onetime sort of revenue. I mean, typically speaking, deals come in and they're 12 months in nature. This time of year, they can be shorter duration like intra-quarter, they could cross over the quarters, that kind of stuff.

So we just -- we pulled some revenue in based on the timing of the closing of the deals we just originally anticipated in Q4. It will drive manufacturing solutions up for the year. I think we said 35%. I think it will probably sneak above that level actually for the year. But other than that, Jailendra, it's just -- I think it's normal course of this kind of time of year to see some deals come in, and we don't know the exact timing when we're forecasting.

Our next question comes from John Ransom from Raymond James.

Just a couple for me. Your ISP partner where you've had an interruption in the relationship, should we assume that that's a permanent state of affairs? Or is there some hope that, that might be reconciled?

Yes. I mean, I would say less of an interruption and more of them taking a multi-network approach. We still have a fine relationship and continue to see volume flow through it. I think it's a matter of them having added additional partners to that relationship. As to whether or not that narrows again, it's an interesting question. There's always a possibility for something like that to happen, but nothing that I would call out today, John.

I would say we're assuming for our purpose, just -- I mean, we kind of have it as status quo, and it now probably represents a little more upside than downside for us, but I don't think we'll return to it like baking in upside.

And just a second question. I mean, this is a very crude metric. But just looking at your marketing spend; it's still running about 40% of sales and you're spending about the same money to get a 9% decline in PTR. So how do we think about long-term customer acquisition cost, marketing spend? And how do you calibrate that relative to your revenue?

Yes. We -- look, from our perspective, it's very important to invest in our brand. And so, we do -- we think about the metrics that you're talking about, but they don't drive necessarily the decisions. We want to think about where it's appropriate, the effectiveness of dollars, where we spend it, the timing of it. As we launch subscription offerings, for example, we're sort of relitigating how we think about putting dollars behind that from a marketing perspective.

We've got a new brand campaign out there. Unaided awareness is up across the board as we measure it. So, it's working. But when we think about the macro trends that I outlined earlier, and we -- for the most part this year, as cash has contracted as a market, we've increased market share. That's important because that's the way you take advantage of getting more than your fair share in an expanding market for 2026.

So look, we believe we'll return to growth in our platform. And I think those marketing dollars as measured in any one year in a year like this, where I think we faced multiple headwinds, I'm less concerned about it. So, we just make that decision in the totality as we sort of do a multiyear planning.

[Operator Instructions] And our next question comes from Steven Valiquette from Mizuho Securities.

I also just wanted to come back to the Manufacturer Solutions segment for a moment on the pull forward that you talked about. So, I guess as we think about 2026, the quarterly cadence for that segment and the normal seasonality, should we assume for now then that the revenues would just increase sequentially every quarter throughout the calendar year? And then if there's a pull forward next year, we just focus on that if that happens. But -- so what's the normal pattern when thinking about 2026? If you can provide any color on that, that would be helpful.

Yes. Look, I mean, I think generally speaking, the trend is up as those sales close throughout the year. And just to be clear, when I -- when we talk about sequential revenue coming down, it's more total revenue. I'm not talking specifically about manufacturing solutions, just to be clear about that.

So -- but look, it can be a little lumpy in terms of when and how those deals close, right? We're looking to go deeper into existing manufacturer relationships. We're looking to add new ones. We track a traditional sales pipeline with a funnel. We estimate probability of close, timing of close, and those don't always happen exactly as we forecast them. But generally speaking, we think it's growth. This is a growth engine for us. I think it will continue to be manufacturer solutions, that is. I think it will continue to be an increasing part of our revenue. So I anticipate it continuing to grow.

Our next question comes from Stan Berenshteyn from Wells Fargo.

On Manufacturing Solutions, you called out the point-of-sale discount programs as being contributors here. I'm just curious, what percent of the growth that we saw in the quarter can be ascribed to the point of sale? And can you maybe give us some examples of what those at-the-counter promotions or customer interactions look like?

We don't, I mean, I appreciate the question, Stan. We don't break out like the percentage of growth between sort of the media side and the point-of-sale side, and some of the other revenue streams within pharma manufacturers. So we have over 80 deals that drive the revenue there. So for us, it's more a reflection of expanding deeper into the portfolio of drugs with our existing partners and then adding more manufacturers to the mix, which we continue to do.

And then look, I think as we talked about, while we don't really know how TrumpRx will play out, when I listen to [ Dr. Oz ] was interviewed on TV over the last 72 hours talking about exactly what Wendy said and reaffirming what we're being told in our discussions with the government, which is they intend to link out to the lowest cost available. And we think we're well-positioned to be that provider. And look, consumers have near complete access to their medicine cabinet through us, so I think that positions us well. And I think TrumpRx will continue to be a tailwind for manufacturer solutions as well.

And if I may add, I will also say it's providing momentum for manufacturers who may be, while they may have had interest in point-of-sale conversations, it's giving them, I think, a little bit more energy around, oh gosh, well, maybe now is the time for us to do this. And it's providing, I think, some momentum to move some deals and negotiations along a bit faster between us and manufacturer partners as well.

And just more on the tactical end of this, as you think about the mix that is all of the pharma affordability programs, of which a component, of course, are the brand point-of-sale deals, some of the ones notably that are contributing to our growth include our partnership with Novo around Ozempic and Wegovy. I mean, that is no small feat, given that it is the most competitive cash price on Ozempic. And we just recently announced a partnership with Amgen around Repatha. And that retail price is considerably less expensive than the historical price point.

So again, we are seeing that mix certainly shift and pointing towards point-of-sale deals, but we continue to have interest in all of the affordability programs, provided they improve access and affordability across the board for our shared consumers.

Our next question comes from Kevin Caliendo from UBS.

This is [ Jack Sem ] on for Kevin. In your prepared remarks, you mentioned that GoodRx search volumes are up across the board. Is this coming from one particular initiative or advertising campaign? And kind of curious how these search volumes have trended over the past few months since the launch? And then if you can just discuss, like any conversion rates or anything like that, that would be very helpful.

Yes. I mean, Jack, we've seen with our new campaign that unawaited awareness is up, access is up. I'd love to make sure I answer your question. I'm not sure I can get you. Like, I can follow up with you on the data. I don't have a lot more data from a marketing perspective at my fingertips, but I'm happy to sort of give you the right information in terms of what you're asking. And if you want to clarify exactly what you're looking for, Jack, I'm happy to see if I can address it more accurately.

Yes, that's okay. I was just more curious about how those search trends have kind of trended just over the past few months. You don't have to go into too much detail on that, so I appreciate it.

Yes. We're really tracking it. And just to be clear, like it's coinciding with the launch of our new overall brand campaign, right? And so some of the metrics that were key to us that we sort of set out upfront, while we're meeting and exceeding the benchmarks that we had planned for in those campaigns. This goes back to the earlier point about our advertising dollar.

The one thing we want to ensure ourselves is that we're spending those dollars effectively and we're driving the right eyeballs. These are very important statistics for us as we go back to manufacturers and show them and demonstrate that we are the right platform to get eyeballs on their portfolio of drugs. And so it's why we spend what we spend, and right now, the campaigns seem to be working.

Our next question comes from Craig Hettenbach from Morgan Stanley.

Just staying on Manufacturing Solutions and understanding you already have some nice momentum in that market. When I look more broadly, you have a very high gross margin, and, high EBIT margin business. Are there opportunities to reinvest more of that into driving even further growth in manufacturing? How do you think about just kind of reinvestment in the business here?

Yes. I mean, look, the one thing I would say, obviously, we don't break out margin specific to Manufacturing Solutions versus PTR. But look, the business has been growing and our margins have been expanding, right? So I think you can have an implied there. In terms of investment, as Wendy noted, I mean, we've made specific investments into capabilities like directed media at the NPI level, which is, I think, the important thing to do. We are actually investing in capabilities to own more of the Rx journey, which is ACP-type initiatives and accessing HCPs, and kind of engaging them and influencing decisions at the point of the clinical encounter.

And then obviously, from there, obviously, engaging with the consumer on pricing, transparency, affordability programs, pharmacy choice, and all of the above. So the answer across the board is yes. We continue to pursue initiatives and reinvest in the right initiatives that we think will drive Mantol's growth.

I would say, though, in balancing that as an executive leadership team, we do spend considerable time on how we balance reinvestment with also being good stewards of overall dollars. And you will continue to see us try and keep a healthy balance there, such that we're balancing SG&A with the appropriate bottom line outcome. It's an incredibly important component to both Chris and I that the cost where it's added needs to drive favorable returns. So it's a balance we're striking, but I very much appreciate the question.

Our next question comes from Brian Tanquilut from Jefferies.

Maybe just to take the other side of the ISP question. As we think about the Rite Aid headwinds, I mean, a matter of anniversarying it? Or are there initiatives that you're rolling out to try to drive that recovery quicker?

Yes. I mean, we obviously target recapture. It's not an exact science at times, right? Where we've got data on the actual consumer and there's contactability, we obviously are doing outreach. It is one of the reasons you've seen us increase our overall brand awareness because, one of the things we believe is the good thing about our business, unlike many other aspects of the sort of, I guess, all of the medical or health ecosystem, is our consumers actually choose to do business with us, right?

And so they've come to our platform looking for access and affordability to their medication. And when they choose a pharmacy, that stays on file. If they get ported over to somebody, it's not clear that they are even aware that they may have come off the GoodRx platform. And so the idea of making sure that they come back and recheck for affordability, I think, is important. And look, we will continue to invest in initiatives, as I just talked about in terms of owning the Rx journey and e-commerce solutions, and other ways to get people fully committed and have sort of a durable relationship with those patients. But the sort of long and short answer to your question is, yes, we will always seek to recapture that volume as soon as possible.

Yes. And if I may add, I mean, the counter initiatives that we've continued to talk about, that is largely your answer, right? When we contract directly with the retailer to own that counter, and particularly when e-commerce is a component of it, that's largely where we invest. And in many instances, we are actually spending marketing dollars through those same retailers to ensure that we are not only capturing the attention, but then we're retaining that same consumer at that counter. And that's how you offset instances of a Rite Aid closure and the manner in which you just outlined that question. That's how you go about doing that strategically, in my view.

That concludes the question-and-answer session, and this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for joining. You may now disconnect.

Hello, and welcome to GoodRx Second Quarter 2025 Conference Call and Webcast. [Operator Instructions]

I would now like to turn the conference over to Aubrey Reynolds. You may begin.

Welcome to GoodRx's earnings conference call for the second quarter 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 financial -- 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 consumer direct price points 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 the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, 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 thanks to everyone joining us. Our business continues to deliver strong adjusted EBITDA margins, and our team is executing on a number of fronts that we believe will help deliver long-term growth opportunities. During the second quarter, we remained focused on the key initiatives designed to better position the company for sustainable long-term growth.

To highlight a few. In pharma manufacturer solutions, we continue to strengthen key relationships with pharma manufacturers while also expanding our share of wallet across their market access, consumer marketing and HCP budgets.

Our monetization per brand has increased significantly year-over-year as we demonstrated our return on investment for brands and helped grow Pharma's direct patient engagement strategies for access and affordability. These efforts drove 32% year-over-year revenue growth during the quarter. We believe this offering will continue to perform at similar levels throughout the rest of 2025, especially bolstered by recent trends of top pharma companies adopting direct-to-patient and consumer direct pricing models.

In prescription marketplace, we made strong progress to align with our retail partners. Since we last spoke, we have signed several retailer partnerships where our discounted pricing is presented to consumers on the pharmacy counter. Also, we launched e-commerce solutions with an additional retailer and are in contract discussions for several more. We look forward to announcing more detail behind these partnerships in the coming weeks.

We are pleased to have new partners for our integrated savings program, and we have expanded the program to service brand medications in addition to generics across multiple PBM partners.

And finally, we announced during the quarter that we launched our condition subscription product for erectile dysfunction, which allows us to deepen our engagement with consumers directly while maximizing our return on existing capabilities.

I will discuss these in greater detail in a few minutes. But first, I want to formally welcome Laura Jensen as our new Chief Commercial Officer and President of Pharma Solutions. In this role, she will lead the company's pharma manufacturer solutions offering as well as oversee strategic initiatives aimed at growing and enhancing partnerships across the pharmaceutical industry.

Our former Chief Commercial Officer, Dorothy Gemmell, is retiring after 35 years in healthcare leadership positions, but will continue for a transitional period of time to ensure a seamless shift of responsibilities, key relationships and pipeline opportunities.

Prior to joining GoodRx, Laura led growth strategy for both Amazon Pharmacy and PillPack, spearheading innovative partnerships with pharma manufacturers and prescribers to improve how patients access and manage their medications. She has established relationships with executive level leaders in pharma and brings a track record of creating integrated experiences that drive efficiency and improved patient outcomes. We believe that Laura is well positioned to deepen our impact, accelerate growth in this critical area of the business and expand solutions in an ever-changing landscape.

With respect to the healthcare landscape, change has become a constant with positive and negative impacts on our business. We continue to believe that we are well positioned to respond to such changes, deliver value across the pharmacy ecosystem and grow our business over the long-term. Negative developments impacting our business in the short-term include the Rite Aid bankruptcy and the decline in volume of one of our integrated savings programs with a PBM partner.

With respect to Rite Aid, during our last earnings call, we did not have line of sight into the bankruptcy process, the plan for store closures or other pertinent details regarding the transition of patient files. And therefore, we explicitly excluded any impact from our earnings guidance.

Beginning in May, the process unfolded rapidly with several PBMs removing Rite Aid from their networks, causing immediate cessation in the associated claims volume. This was followed by closures of over 800 stores between June and July. Given the speed with which this process occurred, we are working to recapture displaced consumers, both through direct communications where available and in partnership with acquiring pharmacy retailers. Recapture does take time, however.

With respect to our integrated savings program, we saw a material decline in volume at one of our PBM partners. As we have previously discussed, the first generation of our ISP offering is focused on covered generics and is operated through PBMs who decide how to implement and manage the program. While this PBM partners restructure of their ISP program has created volume headwinds for us, we believe that ISP remains important and valuable. ISP on generics has represented a tremendous entry point for GoodRx solutions and pricing. But as time progresses, we believe significant opportunity will come by way of brand drugs, understanding the share of spend these drugs represent for plan sponsors. In this way, ISP will continue to be a growth engine and complement to our pharma manufacturer solutions strategy.

The core of our prescription marketplace remains strong, and we're proactively broadening our revenue mix and deepening pharmacy partnerships to reduce the risk of similar disruptions in the future. The foundations we are building with retailers continue to position us for long-term growth at a time when prescription savings are top of mind.

At the same time, we've seen significant developments in the broader healthcare landscape. In July, Congress passed a budget bill that amongst many other provisions, cuts funding for Medicaid and individual exchange products. This legislation also tightens eligibility requirements and increases the frequency of Medicaid coverage determinations. According to the Congressional Budget Office, these changes could leave nearly 10 million people uninsured, a rise of nearly 40%. We understand the challenges facing those who will lose coverage and emphasize that the need for GoodRx is more critical than ever to ensure such individuals have access to affordable medication.

Additionally, several health plans have reported higher-than-anticipated medical utilization during 2025. This suggests that the trend of rising costs, increasing premiums and reduced coverage is likely to continue in 2026 and beyond. In fact, CMS recently announced that the 2026 Part D national average monthly bid amount is up 33% year-over-year.

And finally, we remain engaged with government entities as they explore models to reduce brand drug pricing directly to consumers. Our existing large portfolio of discounted consumer direct pricing for brand drugs places us in a very strong position to be a solution of choice. As millions of Americans seek affordable alternatives, we believe GoodRx remains and will continue to become an increasingly valuable complement to insurance by helping them access the medications they need. Consistent with our commitment to increase our government affairs engagement, we are actively advocating for policies that expand access to affordable medication.

Now let's dive into more detail on our business update. Our prescription marketplace continues to make progress in deepening our pharmacy relationships and delivering more economic and strategic value to pharmacies. We do this by focusing on 2 core strategies: pharmacy counter integrations; and e-commerce.

Pharmacy counter integrations expand GoodRx's presence to the physical pharmacy counter as an ally to pharmacists and technicians by helping patients with prescription access and affordability in real time. We expanded to multiple new pharmacy partners this quarter and expect more announcements on additional partners soon.

Our e-commerce solution integrates into the pharmacy management system to enable consumers to pay online and pick up in-store, thereby making the front-end adjudication more efficient and saving time at the counter while focusing on reducing the number of abandoned scripts. We launched e-commerce solutions with an additional retailer during the quarter and are in contract discussions for several more. We are highly focused on digitally integrating into all aspects of the prescription workflow as a longer-term strategy to remove friction in the process.

We are also excited about the launch of GoodRx Community Link, a new offering designed specifically for independent pharmacies that provides predictable pricing and favorable economics. We recognize independent pharmacies are a cornerstone of healthcare in many communities, and they need bespoke solutions to address complex reimbursement models and competitive pressures in the industry.

Community Link offers independent pharmacies the ability to directly contract with GoodRx, which leverages a cost-plus model based on the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost, or NADAC to provide direct control over pricing and favorable margins. It also offers the ability to opt into our integrated savings program, which may offer more favorable rates than traditional commercial insurance reimbursement and provides access to our point-of-sale discounts, which we will now refer to as consumer direct price points with pharma brands, making the medications more affordable for the consumer and economically beneficial for the pharmacy.

The intent of this cost-plus program is to support favorable margins, and our internal data is demonstrating successful results for participating pharmacies. This type of direct pharmacy engagement represents how GoodRx goes to market with pharmacy durability front of mind.

In the second quarter, we also launched our first subscription service for erectile dysfunction. We observed that consumers regularly turn to GoodRx for ways to save on ED medications, and now they have access to a single solution that provides comprehensive care. By bundling the clinician visit, prescription and delivery into one low-cost offering, we're redefining what accessible care can look like and streamlining the prescription journey from beginning to end, making it easier for consumers to access ED treatments within a platform they already trust. We are pleased with the early results and intend to expand into additional conditions before the end of the year with weight loss management and hair loss upcoming.

Furthermore, we also launched a new prescription savings subscription offering that is being sold at the pharmacy counter. Our first retail partner went live in the second quarter, and we expect other retailers to follow suit in tandem with other pharmacy counter initiatives discussed earlier.

Our pharma manufacturer solutions delivered strong results during the second quarter with 32% year-over-year revenue growth. We are focused on expanding our integrated access and affordability solutions with pharma, partnering with even more brands and delivering meaningful return on investment for pharma partners.

Our monetization per brand has increased significantly, which is driven by our independently validated ROI and by the scale of our platform and quality of our audience. This is particularly true as we support pharma brands in their direct-to-patient strategies, a key focus for many top manufacturers.

One area we are specifically focused on is our consumer direct pricing model. As many pharma brands build consumer direct strategies, we are a natural partner of choice, given the size and quality of our audience and demonstrated consumer and HCP engagement.

I'm particularly enthusiastic about the intersection of our pharma manufacturing solutions offering and our HCP efforts. Our HCP audience and engagement are significant. In the second quarter alone, we had over 750,000 HCPs active on our platform. We believe this scale gives us a unique opportunity to help facilitate pharma's access to prescribers. We now have the capabilities to deliver a customized engagement with our expansive HCP audience for targeted pharmaceutical offers, which are now incorporated into our 2026 selling plan. We see significant upside for our pharma offerings to grow and deliver meaningful value to both HCPs and pharma manufacturers due to the quality of our audience and targeting precision.

I want to reiterate our focus on controllable and durable strategic initiatives that position GoodRx for long-term sustainable growth. We are executing against these inclusive of signing direct retail pharmacy counter partnerships, growing our brand pharma portfolio, evolving our ISP program and go-to-market strategy and looking into 2026, creating an expanded HCP product in addition to exploring and expanding the integration of GoodRx pricing into EHR and digital workflows.

I am also convicted and confident in our executive leadership team's ability to execute on our strategic plan amidst a challenging healthcare environment.

I will now turn the call over to Chris to discuss our second quarter results.

Thank you, Wendy, and good morning, everyone. For the second quarter, total revenue was $203.1 million, up 1% versus the prior year. This is in line with our expectations when excluding the impact of Rite Aid, which, as a reminder, the guidance provided in May excluded the impact from Rite Aid.

The erosion of the ISP program that Wendy noted earlier and the impact from Rite Aid were the primary reason prescription transaction revenue declined 3% versus the prior year and for the decline in monthly active consumers.

We expect monthly active consumers to decline in the short-term. However, we are reassessing this metric as a measure of the health of our business. For example, when we convert a consumer from a traditional retail counter transaction to a consumer direct price point, we no longer include the transaction in our MAC count nor do we report any corresponding metric under the Pharma Manufacturing Solutions offering. In this example, the result is a reported decline in our monthly active consumer when the business is actually performing as intended.

With respect to pharma manufacturer solutions, revenue for the quarter was $35 million, up 32% versus the prior year. This was strong performance resulting in revenue growth in the first half of the year of 25% compared to the first half of 2024. We are now projecting our pharma manufacturing solutions offering will grow 30% or higher in 2025.

During the quarter, we took certain actions to reduce costs while aligning our resources to a more focused set of key strategic priorities. This realignment is intended to increase go-forward operating efficiencies, which will continue to contribute positively to our overall adjusted EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA margin.

For the second quarter, adjusted EBITDA of $69.4 million rose 6% versus the prior year, which constitutes an adjusted EBITDA margin of 34.2%, which is an improvement of 160 basis points over the same period last year.

Our balance sheet remains strong. We closed the quarter with $281.3 million of cash on hand. And during the quarter, we deployed approximately $46.4 million to repurchase 10.2 million shares of our stock at an average price of $4.53 per share. Given our stock price, we continue to believe that stock repurchases are accretive and a good method to return excess cash to shareholders. At the end of the second quarter, approximately $143 million of capacity remained under our $450 million share repurchase program.

Turning now to our outlook for the remainder of the year. As Wendy noted, last quarter, we were unable to estimate the impact of Rite Aid and therefore, specifically excluded any impact from the previous guidance ranges. While uncertainty remains, we are now including the impact from Rite Aid as well as the erosion of one of our ISP programs into our updated guidance.

In spite of the headwinds from these 2 exogenous events, which is expected to be approximately $35 million to $40 million of projected revenue loss in 2025, we expect that our full year revenue will increase from 2024 with Q3 revenue expected to be lower than Q4.

Despite lowering our revenue projections, we expect that full year adjusted EBITDA will be in the range of $265 million and $275 million, which represents approximately 2% to 6% growth compared to 2024.

Overall, we had a solid financial quarter. I'm highly encouraged by the results of pharma manufacturer solutions offering driving towards 30% or higher revenue growth in 2025. And while lowering revenue expectations due to external factors is disappointing, our core business remains strong and the fact that our adjusted EBITDA range continues to encompass a portion of our previous range is a testament to our leadership team and the focus on the right strategic initiatives and operating efficiencies. We are also optimistic that investment into these strategic initiatives will drive durable, profitable future growth while solving real pain points for the consumers and the pharmacy ecosystem.

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

Thank you, Chris. Over the course of my first 6 months, I want to reiterate my commitment to strengthening our leadership team, continuing to evaluate our core capabilities and engaging with key partners to solve real business problems and to develop a new strategic initiatives -- new strategic initiatives rather to drive sustainable future growth. I'm confident that we are making meaningful progress on these commitments. We have the right leadership team in place to navigate the evolving prescription medication landscape while focusing on delivering operational efficiencies that will improve our long-term trajectory.

We've also made meaningful progress on initiatives that create value for each of our core stakeholders by delivering aligned economic value with our pharmacies, building strong momentum with pharma manufacturers to enable medication access and affordability, investing in tools that improve HCP workflows and engagement and delivering a better consumer experience while providing access to affordable medications. When I look at the progress we have made, along with the broader macroeconomic and healthcare environment, I can say with confidence that GoodRx is in a strong position to reduce friction and deliver meaningful value to consumers in the pharmacy ecosystem.

I will now turn the call over to the operator for questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Lisa Gill with JPMorgan.

Can you maybe just spend an incremental minute around ISP? One, maybe talk about some of the new partnerships that you're talking about? And then secondly, you talked about potentially going to employers directly. How should we think about the time line of the turnaround of ISP where it could become a positive contributor again to GoodRx?

Lisa, thank you for the question. Look, you've heard us talk a little bit about ISP before. And I think I've been, as has Chris, been a little more tempered about the expectation around ISP while in a critical product to how we reach commercial lives. And there's no question that in partnering with PBMs, that is the fastest and most expeditious access to commercial lives.

We also know that the ability for our GoodRx competitive cash price to always surface as a complement to the funded price point at the point of sale doesn't always come through in that capacity. And so for that reason, we're a little more metered as to the expectation that we should get out of that program.

Having said that, you're spot on with your lead-in pointing to brands. That is a certain value add to the program in that this auto wrap as we refer to it internally of brand drugs, many of which, of course, we point to through our pharma manufacturer solutions growth, they, in fact, provide coverage at the point of sale for these same commercial lives for brands that are otherwise not covered on their plan. And so for that reason, the engagement from PBM partners around adding this as a complement to their already integrated offering has been quite high. You've heard us talk about it a couple of times, but we've now actually executed contractual wording to do that with several partners.

As to the second part of your question on additional partners we have added de novo, that, in fact, is true. We're pleased with that progress. I hope to have more definitive and combined public announcements as to who those are upcoming. But at present, we're just simply comfortable suggesting we've added more to our portfolio of partners for the time being.

Chris, is there anything else you'd add?

No, I think I would reiterate the fact that this is a very important program. It strategically still has real merit in terms of why it exists. And I think from a financial perspective, there's positive contribution coming not only with respect to adding new partners and expanding the access to overall lives available to us, but also working -- continuing to work with our PBM partners as to the implementations on the ones that currently exist. And then I'd say, as Wendy's noted, just expanding it to brands and direct-to-employer all represent upside on this program, which remains important.

Chris, can you just remind us like what's in the numbers for '25? And how much of this would actually be more of a '26 type of opportunity?

I think we think about it more as a '26 opportunity. I think where we are now is we've taken the guidance down is obviously in terms of the $35 million to $40 million, that reflects all of everything we know as it's currently running today, right? So roughly half of that is associated with ISP, give or take. So I think adding additional partners and expanding the program would represent upside, but I think likely that's '26.

Our next question comes from the line of Michael Cherny with Leerink Partners.

Maybe if we can dive in a little bit on manufacturer solutions. I appreciate the color on the other challenges of the business. manufacturer solutions obviously had a really strong quarter. Can you talk a little bit more about how you think of the combination of the offensive growth and targeted pushes you've made versus the health of the end market and how we should think about the bridge getting to that increased, I think you said, Chris, 30% plus revenue growth for the year?

Thank you for the question. You're right. We're pretty pleased with how manufacturer solutions has performed. The numbers, of course, speak for themselves, but we feel highly convicted as to the 30-plus for the full year, which we've, of course, included in our explicit guidance in this call. I think what we've seen happen ties nicely to some of the commentary you've heard us mention previously, which is when we first engage with a manufacturer who perhaps hadn't worked with us before on a brand point-of-sale buydown. Typically, we will have one or a portfolio of drugs inside one particular disease state with a pharma partner. We're then turning around these ROI studies that candidly are just producing an outsized comparative result to what they can achieve through their own brand.com activity. And this is a combination of either the brand point-of-sale buydown and/or a combination of embedding their affordability programs. So I think copay manufacturer assistance and the like. So it's across the board. Some involve all of those things, some involve only aspects. And then when we return these ROI studies that, that support not only positive ROI, but candidly outsized new brand to Rx therapy growth, then what we're finding is we're expanding into other portfolios within those same manufacturers.

And when you zoom out a little bit and think about the regulatory environment that we're now sitting in, where this administration is pointing heavily towards direct-to-patient channels, we're well positioned to take advantage of that with these same manufacturers and potentially with others who may have been on the fence about doing a point-of-sale program to begin with. And we've been actively engaged not just with the pharma partners, but also in D.C., which was part of our commitment to this group to be able to engage more heavily to influence what we think is the right answer ultimately for the consumer market.

Chris, is there anything from a number standpoint you would add?

Yes. I would say, Mike, thanks for the question. I mean this is -- as I said in my script, and I can't underscore enough how excited we are about this part of the business. It's a part of the business that I think is undervalued as a 30-plus percent grower. We have direct line of sight to 30%, which is why I said 30% or higher. So we have real strong conviction around that. As we talked about last quarter, the revenue cycle here is a little bit lumpy as you're bringing those sales on, but the conversations with pharma continue and really are increasingly, as Wendy noted, around direct-to-patient engagement, and we've got a great platform to bring that to market. So I think we've got high conviction around line of sight to 30% and really beyond.

And then just one quick question. I know you don't guide below EBITDA, but how should we think about your expectations, your focus for capital deployment for the remainder of the year? You had elevated share repurchases in 2Q. Should we think about that being another level that you would continue to pursue?

Yes. So in terms of that, I think it's a good question. Look, we'll always reinvest in our business. And so as I mentioned, we took some actions in the second quarter to sort of rightsize the business and -- but really, it was about realigning resources around a more focused set of strategic initiatives, some of which we can't actually talk about yet. So we'll continue to invest in those areas to enable future growth. Nothing outsized versus what you're already seeing. I think it's already fit into the run rate. But we'll continue to do that first and foremost. So really no change other than we'll have some on reserve. There is some potential for us to electively spend a little bit more in the back half on some marketing initiatives to kind of also complement some strategic initiatives that are ongoing as well. But not a lot has changed there.

And then look, absent some other strategic use for the cash, like we believe the shares are undervalued today. We'll continue to push cash back into the share repurchase program sort of some other better and higher use.

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

Wendy, just kind of more of a, kind of, structural question. As you guys have pivoted to cost-plus and certainly, I understand that's good for the retailers, do you find that the comparative pricing versus what the PBM has already negotiated is less competitive than it was? And so maybe just the market for cash pay scripts has been compressed a little bit by that dynamic?

Yes. No, it's an interesting question, and you're picking up on something that is, in fact, objectively true. So with cost-plus, costs at point of sale have, in fact, gone up. That's true. And so as a result, there have been a bolus of scripts that have pushed back on to the funded benefit as compared to cash. And also, candidly, we've contributed a bit to that in that we really needed to rebalance the pharmacy economic. And by doing so, we paid the pharmacies a bit more such that they are motivated and actually want to receive these scripts and service these scripts, but still candidly at a competitive price for the consumer. But in some instances, the price has gone up. That's true. I think that's a fair observation.

Okay. And then just another question. Just looking at the marketing spend, I mean, again, it's just true that the monthly active users are down. I know you guys think that's not the perfect measure. But is there some opportunity here to rethink how -- I mean, I just know just less mass market commercials from you, but what is the company's updated messaging, especially as you push into branded? It seems like some of the stuff I've seen is still kind of GoodRx 1.0. "Hey, you can check your app and buy at a cheaper price." But what's the thought about migrating the messaging and maybe getting a little more punch for the dollars you're spending?

Yes. Gosh, it's a really timely question, John. I think we've alluded to, guys, keep me honest here, but we've talked about having additional marketing spend in the back half of the year. That continues to be the plan. We are weeks out on the precipice of a brand relaunch and refresh that I think you'll find to be a bit punchier. It will certainly be more pervasive than our messages today in market. It's been a good 3 years since we've heavily invested in the brand. Having said that, we have continued to enjoy the #1 brand position with consumers and HCPs, but certainly resting on your laurels doesn't get you very far. So we agree. It has been a purposeful campaign and build. I'm excited for the broader market to see and receive it. I would leave you with that give it a couple of weeks, and you'll see it in and around many places, and then we would certainly welcome your feedback once you see it in market.

Yes. And you guys are going to have like meme coins, you can buy your drugs with meme coins or something really in 2025?

Yes. No, no Bitcoin, no cryptocurrency to get drugs. No, not quite that catchy. But Chris, I think you were going to say that.

Yes, that's a good idea. So I do think our spend will be slightly elevated in the second half compared to first half. And I think as Wendy noted, it will come as a non -- listen, I'll leave the marketing sort of expertise to guys like Ryan Sullivan and our team who are just world-class at it. But we will both invest in our brand itself and -- but also in growth initiatives. So we'll have sort of 2 different types of marketing spend that will really be specific in the back half. Some -- still the brand initiatives will be out there. And then as we sort of get to an announceable event on some strategic initiatives, we'll spend some money to support those growth initiatives. So think about subscription offerings and coming offerings around weight loss, ED, we really haven't leaned into those yet from a marketing perspective. And so when those launch, I think you would see some spend to support those as well.

Before we get off to the question, I would be remiss, John, without also pointing out -- you heard me mention additional pharmacy counter programs and deepening those relationships. There is an aspect of that, that involves purposeful marketing spend, again, where we believe the consumer is most engaged and often is already motivated, has a script and is ready to transact. And so for that reason, we had purposeful spend in the previous months and we'll continue through the back half of the year to firm up those counter programs as well.

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

I'd like to go back to the guidance change here. So I think at the midpoint, it is something like $35 million to $40 million of revenue. Is that about 4.5%, I think for the midpoint, Chris, you talked about last quarter, Rite Aid was under 5%. But here, you're talking about 4.5%, which includes both the impact from ISP and Rite Aid. If I recall, I think this predates you guys, but I think the estimate for ISP was only about $30 million of revenue contribution. I think it was either for last year or maybe for this year. So what I'm trying to understand is of this -- the guidance adjustment, is this more Rite Aid? Or is this more ISP -- and if it's -- if it's not all Rite Aid, what do you think the remaining exposure relative to that would be potentially? Or do you feel like you have really sized it appropriately here?

Yes. I think we've sized it. So I would say roughly half and half, right, between -- in terms of the $35 million to $40 million we're calling out. And look, there are some -- Rite Aid isn't a perfect science. I mean, we don't have the primary file. So it's hard to reconcile exactly what our recapture rate is, but we have assumptions around that. We think that, obviously, you're hit a little harder in the near-term, and we'll recapture those strips in the back half. So there is some assumption built around how we're recapturing and what rate. We actually haven't felt the full impact yet, from Rite Aid either. There was about 400 store closures in June. We saw some other immediate sort of, as Wendy noted, cessation with some of the programs with Rite Aid. So there's sort of this initial impact with the rapid nature of the store closures, there's likely a pool of consumers that went to their local pharmacy just to find that it wasn't there anymore and may have transferred the script themselves.

So there's a lot to unwind there. But to your question directly on the numbers, I would think about it about half and half. We put a range on it because there's still some impact. We're doing everything we can from a contactability and others to ensure that we're recapturing the highest possible, and I think that we'll continue to do that. And part of the brand effort and the marketing is all tied into this, right, which is to reinvigorate the brand to make sure that those who came to us as consumers and elected to do business with us will continue to come back to us.

And look, I think there's tailwinds coming in 2026 anyway. If you look at the PDP premiums that were announced by CMS, they're up 33%. This is -- I know that's not the commercial market, but you're seeing other payers talk about high utilization. I think that likely ends up being some of the things that we just talked about that John asked on the prior question around the costs have gone up. I think that people have gone back to the benefit this year. I think they'll come back to the cash benefit next year. I think you hear other manufacturers like Novo talked about the importance of cash programs. I think you've seen some large payers talk about the importance of cash programs. So I actually think there's tailwinds for this to come back. And I think as we reinvigorate the brand and go after marketing spend, I think you'll see customers like whatever Rite Aid's losses were, I think we'll recapture those over the longer-term.

Well, so just coming behind you, Chris, your question also was then have you fully accounted for both of these things in this year? The answer is yes. Yes, that's baked into the revised revenue and adjusted EBITDA guidance.

Okay. And then, Wendy, if I could follow up, you mentioned earlier about the opportunities when we think about more broadly in the market, a direct-to-consumer option. Obviously, the President has talked about wanting something similar to that with the MFN pricing. When you look at the landscape of basically where [ indiscernible ], what percent of drugs do you think if they were to go to the MFN price would be reasonably affordable? Because I believe you guys had said once that -- or again, maybe this predates both of you, but sort of when the cash price gets beyond $200, $250 a month, it really is not that attractive to consumers. So when you look at sort of the portfolio of drugs out there, is there a large swath of brand drugs? And I guess this is relevant for ISP Wrap as well. Just what -- how big is that opportunity in the drug spend out there?

Yes. No, I appreciate the question. Look, I think my ability to completely speculate on what that opportunity represents is -- would be somewhat difficult, at least given the looseness, my adjective of the Director from the administration at present. But there's no question that consumer sensitivity around what a cash and/or out-of-pocket price represents from a walkaway standpoint at point of sale, I think it's much higher than most of us really would otherwise logically surmise. And we're seeing that play out with GLP-1s as a great example with what the average consumer is willing to pay from a cash price.

So I would leave you really more with this observation that MFN or no, that it's really more about the delta between what the price would have been absent having a more and purposeful negotiated cash price that feels like a win for the consumer and favorably reimburses the pharmacy. So I would anticipate that there continues to be quite a bit of opportunity even with higher cost brands, even if that lowest cost that ends up being supported by pharma with us and/or others even exceeds the $250 price point. I think it still represents a meaningful opportunity for consumers at the point of sale.

Our next question comes from the line of Stan Berenshteyn with Wells Fargo Securities.

On the subscription line, you saw some declines in the second quarter. Anything to call out in terms of why gold subscriptions slipped? And did you see any offsets from the recently launched erectile dysfunction subscription product?

Yes, you're right. Yes, the gold has declined. I think our counterpoint to that, however, is our push into subscriptions, which is candidly just a more purposeful component of that entire grouping that we would put gold in with subscriptions being encompassed into that. So we started with the erectile dysfunction. We've been pretty pleased with the progress thus far. As we think about additional programs before end of year, I did note both weight loss and hair loss upcoming with candidly more behind that, but we think that those 2 represent the most meaningful opportunities in the near-term.

We also know that our marketplace with the consumers that are already sitting in and around our ecosystem, I mean, roughly 300 million annual visits to our various platforms and comparatively to a lot of these other subscription-type model services, 2x to 3x the number of consumers engaged with us as through these other more partitioned offerings. We think it should represent a meaningful opportunity to hopefully return to growth on those numbers of subscribers in our subscription services.

Our next question comes from the line of Craig Hattenbach with Morgan Stanley.

This is [ Jay ] on for Craig. On the $35 million to $40 million impact, so given the, I guess, lower revenue outlook, can you give us more color on the specific cost controls or margin levers that are being used to maintain the EBITDA margins?

Yes. I mean, it comes in -- it's a little bit of a complexity, but part of it is the ISP programs have a little bit lower revenue per fill. So in a way, when you look the mix shift from higher margin at the counter scripts. The fact that the price points have gone up and the cost-plus models, I think, by definition, are a little bit higher and contributing to the revenue per bill numbers and metrics. So those are the big factors. I mean, it's -- and in terms of cost controls, which you asked about, so we took action, obviously, and part of that was an unfortunate reduction in our workforce, but others was just reallocating certain technology and related resources around strategic initiatives and refining those to the current strategic initiative set. So it's just a more focused approach. And you're seeing it come through. I think we're on a run of maybe 2 years straight of increasing the margin percentage on a year-over-year comparative basis, which we continue to do, and we'll continue to focus on. We have a -- we want to be good stewards of shareholder money and make sure that we're operating the business as efficiently as possible.

Yes. I would just add, part of what Chris and I committed to early on this year when we first engaged with all of you is that we would take a hard look at not only the combination of strategic initiatives we were focused on, but our colleagues and the number of people focused on pulling those initiatives through and that those that really didn't align to the core initiatives that we've continued to speak of in these earnings calls that we would either redeploy in support of or eliminate roles that really weren't in service to the broader strategic mission. We have done that in combination with this broader executive leadership team, and it will just be part of our ongoing discipline as a leadership team.

That's helpful. And as a follow-up, are you seeing any shifts in consumer behavior or prescription fill rates that could impact platform usage in the remainder of the year?

I'm sorry, can you ask that question one more time?

Yes. So are you seeing any shifts in like consumer behavior or prescription fill rates that could impact platform usage in the remainder of the year?

Nothing comes to mind. I'm kind of looking around the room here to think through any.

I would just reiterate what I said, which is I think the fact that consumer prices are up has likely pushed more into the benefit in the short-term, and we're seeing that. I think you're seeing that as a part of the explanation for our MACs coming down, our MAC counts coming down. From my perspective, I think there's a lot of tailwinds that are brewing that are going to push it back the other way next year, as I talked about. But really, there's really no other like consumer-specific behavior other than I think the dynamics around the prices that people are paying at the counter.

Our next question comes from the line of Jailendra Singh with Truist Securities.

I want to double-click more into the volume reduction at one ISP. And apologies if you already covered this, but was it due to changes in PBM behavior or customer behavior or any structural changes? Just trying to better understand what gives you the confidence that this would not spread into your other ISP partnerships? Any proactive actions you can take on your part to manage these potential headwinds in the future?

Yes. Look, I think we've been pretty candid about what ISP is and what it isn't. So in some sense, I would say the notion that the GoodRx price may not always win even when it's more competitive has been known. Candidly, it's part of this problem, but it's still a compelling product that you want to get in front of commercial lives. So for that reason, you've seen us continue to lean into additional partnerships. And while I appreciate the question on so how should we think about scaling it going forward, I think about it really in 2 ways.

One, it's about adding more commercial lives to make sure that we can continue to grow the reach of this product. We've done that, and we're continuing to do that, while also noting in tandem, the pullback of our win rate with one particular partner.

However, part 2, as I think about this, is the additive brands that I noted in the transcript to kick off the call. And so we do see an ability for this product to continue to grow. But if I add 1/3 element, it would be this, which is, look, there's always going to be an element of favor to the PBM. And so for that reason, for this product to truly realize its full potential, it has to be implied through the employer and/or client at some point. They've got to mandate that the cash price always win. And so for that reason, you've heard us talk about engaging more on the employer side, potentially with broker coalition. And we are building out a group to do exactly that. So that really is more the bolstering answer to your question, which is how do we ensure that this product truly realizes its full potential. That's how we're going to do it. And that really is more of a 2026 solve as we get this true strategy in market.

That makes sense. And then my follow-up -- actually, I'm following up on Stan's question around the recent launch of ED subscription plan and plans to expand into other categories such as weight loss and hair loss. How are you thinking about competition in those categories when some DTC incumbents in the space have been making big push? Is the strategy more about leveraging existing platform assets like traffic and ban? Do you have to invest meaningfully to start having impact in those markets?

No, it's a great question. Let me start by saying you're not wrong in noting that effectively tapping into the consumers who are already searching for these drugs on our site represents, again, a 2x to 3x opportunity that those competitors, I'm presuming we're talking about the same ones currently enjoy. So we're certainly starting from a better point, I would say, to springboard off of these types of launches. However, your observation is also correct that competitors do spend a meaningful amount on marketing on these same programs. You've seen us be a bit more tempered there. It is part of our consideration as we think about these future categories, I think you'll see us get more creative. But again, we do have the benefit of taking advantage of consumers who are already in front of us. So naturally, our ability to attract a consumer, I think, comes with a slightly lower cost of acquisition to do so. But you will see us lean into marketing around future programs as well.

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

So I think I had about 5 questions on Rite Aid. I think you answered all of them in the answer to Charles' question earlier. But just to follow up a little bit on that topic. You mentioned you do have some recapture assumptions built into your outlook. Just curious if you're able to maybe give at least some high-level color on what that assumption is, maybe it's, I don't know, 20%, 25% or something like that, just for a rule of thumb just to help us think about that.

And then kind of tied into that, you also mentioned last quarter, again, that you were under-indexed to Rite Aid. Just in hindsight, it doesn't matter as much now, but just remind us why you think that is. But also, is there anything about that mechanically that might make it more challenging for you to recapture the scripts you do have with Rite Aid, and maybe they were just more tied in with other cash pay services or something like that? Just trying to understand that angle as well.

Yes. Let me take those in sort of reverse order. I don't think there's anything unique about the Rite Aid customers that make it either harder or easier to recapture. I think it's just -- these are consumers that were out looking for affordable solutions to access medications. They're just -- so I don't think there's anything about that. I think as we go out and we think about future brand initiatives and the ability to contact these individuals and bring them back to the platform, I think they'll naturally come back to the platform. They may not be even aware they're no longer using their GoodRx coupon depending on where they've landed or whether they've been switched or however that works. So our job is to bring them back and make sure they've got the most affordable price to do that.

In terms of our assumptions built in, I think we haven't given a number, but Steve, I think you're directionally correct in terms of how you're thinking about our assumptions based on some historical. It's not an exact science. We don't exactly know because we're not -- we don't have the primary file. We have ways to sort of trace them and connect the dots back, but it's not an exact science. So your assumptions are sort of generally correct.

I would also add that we do -- [ for ] those that we have contactable information for, we have directly marketed communicated to them and given them an option as to where they could take that next fill, if you will. Additionally, for those that we don't have contactability for, we do have through our digital platform, very clear messaging around, "Hey, is your pharmacy closed? Let us help you." So we are leaning in, in every way possible to recapture these lost consumers.

Ladies and gentlemen, due to the interest of time, our final question will come from the line of Daniel Grosslight with Citi.

There's obviously been a lot of disruption in national retail chains with store closings and the Rite Aid bankruptcy, which has been well covered on this call. But I'm curious where you're seeing volume flow through to with those store closings? And in particular, are you seeing more volume going towards independents? And in conjunction with that, you launched Community Link last quarter. I'm curious if you can maybe provide an update on the uptake you're seeing within independents and Community Link?

Yes. No, I appreciate it. And one, and thank you for the acknowledgment of Community Link. Look, I will say for Rite Aid specifically, I think it's too early to know whether or not independents have been an outsized recipient of that volume. From our partnerships with larger chains, I will say thus far, some of the grocer retailers have been, at least from traffic that they've shared with us, have certainly done well with some of this movement. Of course, CVS bought a number of those files, too. But the timing, knowing that, again, June, July was really the bolus of those store closures, particularly if someone would say on a 90-day fill, the short answer is it's a little too soon to know where we think those are going to go.

To the other point of your question, however, on specifically Community Link, look, we just think it's the right answer. I'm really pleased to be able to support this program, just knowing that those pharmacies often are an island in the rural environments in which they exist, sometimes the only entry and access point to care. What we do know with those that have contracted directly with us thus far that their profitability is up meaningfully. We're incredibly proud of that.

And you're going to see us lean in from a marketing perspective much more heavily, both marketing and communications and to continue to grow the number of those pharmacies that work with us directly, which, of course, also affords them the option to participate in ISP, inclusive of all the brand discounts that we've pointed to through our pharma ManSol business, which again is incredibly meaningful, not only to our larger retail chains, but more pointedly to those smaller community pharmacies that are, for the most part, underwater on all of these brands.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.