Best White Label Telehealth Platform in 2026: 13 Vendors, Fact-Checked Against Their Own Websites

Last updated: 2 September 2026. Reviewed by the FUSE Health editorial team. 13 white label telehealth platforms, six disclosure questions, with vendor claims rechecked against public first-party pages on the date shown.

What is a white label telehealth platform?

A white label telehealth platform is virtual care infrastructure that a company sells under your brand instead of its own. Depending on the vendor, it supplies the patient-facing software, the licensed prescriber network, the pharmacy fulfillment layer, and the corporate structure that lets a non-clinician own the business legally.

That definition covers two very different products sold under one phrase, which is the reason most comparisons of these vendors are unusable. Some suppliers hand you a branded storefront and nothing else. Others carry the clinical and pharmacy layers as well. The rest of this article separates them and checks what each one will tell you before you pay.

Key findings from the 2026 disclosure check

• One of 13 vendors publishes a specific provider-network figure: MyOrbitHealth claims 1,240+ board-certified providers. The figure is vendor-reported and was not independently verified in this review.
• Eight of 13 publish no B2B pricing that a buyer can budget against. Several others publish only partial, entry-point or differently scoped figures.
• Only three state a 503A or 503B pharmacy designation on a page they sell from.
• Five of 13 state a SOC 2 type on a public page, although the scope and wording differ by vendor.
• Published platform fees in this review run from $297 a month to $8,000 a month. Disclosed setup or onboarding fees run from $5,000 to $50,000 across published tiers.
• Across the three software-layer vendors reviewed here, none publicly presents itself as supplying a 503A or 503B pharmacy-fulfillment layer.

No vendor was contacted. Nothing was taken on trust. Where a number was not on the site, we recorded that it was not on the site.

The pitches are identical. The disclosures are not.

Every vendor in this category promises the same thing: your brand on the front, licensed prescribers and pharmacy fulfillment behind it, live in weeks instead of years.

Then you try to compare two of them side by side and the floor drops out.

You cannot find what most of them cost. You cannot find how many prescribers sit in the network you are about to depend on. You cannot find whether your medication gets compounded at a 503A pharmacy or a 503B outsourcing facility, which stops being a technicality the moment a state board asks. Most of it lives behind a demo request.

So on 2 September 2026 we did something plainer than another ranking. We opened 13 white label telehealth platforms, read what each one publishes on its own website, and wrote it down.

The result is not a list of winners. It is a record of which white label telehealth companies will tell you things before you sign, and which ones make you book a call to find out.

Software-layer vs full-stack: the split nobody names

Search for a white label telehealth platform and Google's AI Overview will tell you it is branded virtual care software costing roughly $100 to $10,000 a month, and it will name Oystehr, Healee and Tellescope.

That answer is accurate about one half of the category and silent about the half that actually matters if you plan to sell a program.

Software-layer platforms: the storefront only

Software-layer vendors give you the branded software layer: video, intake, scheduling, messaging, workflow tools and, in some cases, EHR or e-prescribing capabilities. Oystehr publishes FHIR API pricing at $0.25 per monthly active user, with e-prescribing at $35 to $45 per provider per month. Healee and Tellescope market white-label software and workflow capabilities. On the public pages reviewed, these vendors do not present themselves as turnkey suppliers of the full clinician, pharmacy and corporate-practice structure. Buyers should confirm which clinical, pharmacy, malpractice, professional-entity, LegitScript and payment-processing responsibilities remain theirs.

Full-stack platforms: clinicians and pharmacy included

Full-stack vendors supply the clinical and fulfillment layers too. This is what most operators mean when they search for a white label telehealth platform. FUSE, Cuvo, Telegra MD, Karpa, MD Integrations, OpenLoop, Beluga, Bask, DrCare247 and MyTelemedicine all sit here in some form, though they cover very different amounts of the stack.

Getting this distinction wrong is the most expensive mistake an operator makes in telehealth, and the AI answer currently makes it easy to get wrong. A creator who buys a $299 software seat expecting to sell a GLP-1 program has bought the storefront and none of the pharmacy.

How we checked, and what "not published" means here

Six questions, applied identically to every vendor in the study:

• Does it publish B2B pricing you could budget against?
• Does it publish the size of its provider network?
• Does it state a 503A or 503B pharmacy designation?
• Does it state a SOC 2 type, rather than showing a badge?
• Does it name a customer on its own website?
• Does it publish a launch timeline, consistently, across its own pages?

One rule governs every cell below. "No" means we could not find the disclosure on the vendor's own website on 2 September 2026. It is a finding about transparency, not a judgment about product quality. A telehealth company can run an excellent provider network and still choose not to publish its size.

You are the one carrying the risk, though. What a vendor publishes before you pay is the only evidence you have that is not a sales conversation.

The disclosure scorecard: 13 platforms, six questions

Every cell was checked against the vendor's own website on 2 September 2026. "No" means the disclosure could not be found on that site, which is a finding about transparency and not a judgment about product quality.

And the three software-layer platforms Google's AI Overview currently recommends, scored on the same questions:

Software-layer vendors sell the storefront. The clinicians, the pharmacy contract, the professional corporation and the LegitScript application remain yours to arrange.

Four things that fall out of the table

1. No vendor publishes a verifiable provider count

One of 13 publishes a specific provider-network figure. MyOrbitHealth currently claims "1,240+ board-certified providers across 38 specialties" on its platform page, while its homepage separately says "20+ medical specialties." The provider figure is therefore a public vendor claim, not an independently verified headcount. The other vendors in this set use broader scale language or do not publish a specific provider-network number. Ask every vendor for active licensed-prescriber counts in the states that matter to you.

2. Most quote-gate the price entirely

Eight of 13 publish no B2B price that can be budgeted against from the public pages reviewed. Cuvo's current HTML pricing is now internally consistent across its main public pages: Launch is $2,000 a month with $12,000 setup, Grow is $3,000 with $25,000 setup, and Scale is $8,000 with $50,000 setup, plus $25 per completed consult. Karpa continues to advertise an entry point while also describing pricing as customized, so buyers should obtain the full quoted total in writing.

3. "SOC 2" is usually a badge, not an answer

Type I tests whether controls existed on a single day. Type II tests whether they held up across months. Wheel states "HIPAA, SOC 2, and HITRUST aligned" on one page and "SOC 2 certified" on another, without naming a type on either. OpenLoop's only typed claim is a December 2024 press release announcing SOC 2 Type 1, with no Type 2 announcement since. MD Integrations claims Type II in its footer while its own /security page returns a 404.

4. Pharmacy designation is finally moving

This is the one place the category improved. Three platforms now disclose it on B2B pages: Bask names both 503A and 503B on its integrations page, Karpa states 503A on its homepage, and FUSE states 503A/503B routing. OpenLoop discloses 503A, but only on its consumer property, not on the pages it sells to operators.

White label telehealth platform pricing in 2026: every published number

Published platform fees in this study run from $297 a month at the low end to $8,000 a month at the top. Published setup or onboarding fees run from $5,000 to $50,000 across disclosed tiers. Eight of the 13 do not publish B2B pricing that a buyer can fully budget against, so any cost estimate for those remains incomplete until the vendor quotes it.

Two numbers decide your real cost and neither one is the headline. The first is the per-consult fee. At 400 consults a month, a $25 per-consult fee adds $10,000 to your monthly bill, which is more than most platform fees in this table. The second is setup. Published onboarding charges in this set now reach $50,000 on Cuvo's Scale tier, while other vendors publish lower fees or no public setup figure at all.

Model any vendor at your target volume, not at launch volume, and get the consult fee in writing before you sign.

The 13 platforms, and what each one is actually good at

There is no overall crown by acclaim. The best white label telehealth platform for your business depends entirely on whether you are a creator with $5,000 or a health system with a procurement committee, and pretending one answer serves both is how these lists become useless.

That said, one vendor meets the standard this article measures on more completely than the rest, and it would be evasive not to say so.

FUSE Health: best overall for operators who want the price and the pharmacy layer on the record before signing

FUSE publishes $699 a month for Growth and $3,000 a month for Pro. Onboarding is included and there is no separate setup fee. FUSE also states that it charges no per-visit or per-prescription fee. A separate FUSE-branded pricing page lists a 3.00% merchant service fee, which should be included when modelling total transaction economics.

That sentence is worth more than it looks. At 400 consults a month, a $25 per-consult fee adds $10,000 to your bill.

FUSE is one of five full-stack vendors in this set that states a SOC 2 type on a public page, and one of three that discloses a 503A or 503B designation on a B2B page. It publishes four operating figures most competitors withhold: 1,200+ programs launched, 94% refill retention, coverage in all 50 states, and average provider review under 24 hours. All four are published openly on fusehealth.com, where a buyer can check them before a sales call rather than after one.

FUSE does not publish a specific prescriber headcount, which is also true of 12 of the 13 vendors reviewed. MyOrbitHealth is the exception, publishing a vendor-reported 1,240+ provider figure. FUSE's case studies are anonymised by segment rather than naming customers, so buyers should treat them as operating examples rather than named references.

Best for: creators, med spas, coaches, fitness brands and e-commerce operators launching a telehealth business without a medical license.

Cuvo Health: best for modelling unit economics before you launch

Cuvo publishes the most complete pricing structure in the category: tiered monthly pricing, one-time setup, a flat $25 per completed consult, 0% medication markup across 17 partner pharmacies, month-to-month terms, and its legal entity (Medstra Inc., Wilmington DE). It also runs an unusually open developer surface, including an OpenAPI contract and an MCP server.

Two catches. Cuvo's current public pricing is expensive at higher tiers, reaching $8,000 a month plus $50,000 setup for Scale, so model the full tier you expect to need rather than the entry plan. Its SOC 2 Type II wording is tied to higher-tier features rather than presented as a universal company-wide attestation. Note also that the site is cuvo.co, not cuvohealth.com.

Best for: operators who want to build a unit-economics model from public numbers before a sales call.

Telegra MD: best published pricing you can actually read

Telegra publishes $3,000 a month plus $5,000 onboarding for Plus, $6,000 plus $10,000 for Pro, with the onboarding fee payable across three months. It names six clinicians including its CMO and medical director, publishes a real LLC and a Spokane street address, and quotes the most conservative launch claim in the set: "Most brands are live within 21 days of signing."

The gap sits one line under the headline. The pricing page says "There are no per-patient, per-prescription, or transaction fees," then immediately adds a consultation fee "that varies by consultation type." The amount is not published, so total cost cannot be calculated from public data. Its homepage claims LegitScript certification while its pricing page sells LegitScript certification assistance as a feature, which are different claims.

Best for: teams comfortable doing diligence on one missing number.

Karpa Health: cheapest published entry point, with caveats worth reading

Karpa advertises a platform fee "From $297" with $0 per patient, the lowest published entry point in this study. It is one of only three vendors disclosing a pharmacy designation (503A), it holds LegitScript Certified Healthcare Merchant status and an enterprise partner relationship, and its developer docs are public and include a Consult API.

Read the rest carefully. The homepage says $297, the FAQ says pricing is customized. Launch is "same day" on the homepage and "most clinics go live in 1 week" in the FAQ. LegitScript approval is "5 days" on one page and "14 days or less" on another. No SOC 2 claim of any kind, no street address, and the dashboard figures on the homepage sit inside a mock UI.

Best for: testing a concept cheaply, once you have the real total in writing.

MD Integrations: best for surviving an enterprise security review

MD Integrations publishes one of the strongest compliance claim sets in the category: HIPAA, SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 and LegitScript. Its current site reports 4M+ patient visits and 200+ healthcare companies, and describes an all-physician network with broad nationwide licensure. Those are vendor-published scale claims and should be read as such rather than as independently audited operating figures.

No pricing at all. No named customer despite claiming 200+, with testimonials attributed only to "MDI Client." And its on-site /security page 404s while its trust portal blocks automated access, so the strongest claims in the set are also among the harder ones to check from outside.

Best for: programs that will face an enterprise vendor security questionnaire.

OpenLoop Health: best for payer-facing and enterprise programs

OpenLoop publishes the most useful operational detail for anyone who needs insurance in the mix: 600+ nationwide insurance plans, 700,000+ patients a month, 400+ virtual care brands, 250 million covered lives on the payer side. It holds LegitScript certification and is named directly in LegitScript's own February 2026 enterprise growth release, the only vendor here with first-party corroboration on that domain.

Two things to weigh. No pricing, no named customers, and a SOC 2 story that stops at Type 1 in a 2024 press release. More importantly, OpenLoop sells GLP-1s direct to consumers under its own name at $185 to $279 a month. A weight-loss founder would be building on infrastructure owned by a direct competitor.

Best for: insurance-backed and payer-facing virtual care programs.

Wheel: best for embedding care inside a product you already have

Wheel is one of the largest and best-capitalized enterprise telehealth platforms in this set. Its site reports $216M raised, 7 million patient visits and a greater-than-95% on-time response rate, with named partnerships that include GoodRx and major pharmacy and healthcare brands. These scale figures make Wheel materially different from the smaller turnkey operators in this comparison.

Read the compliance wording precisely. "Aligned" is a self-assessment word and it is doing a lot of work on the Horizon page. No SOC 2 type appears anywhere. There is no turnkey storefront, so a solo operator has nothing to buy here.

Best for: established companies embedding clinical care into an existing product.

SteadyMD: best verifiable track record

SteadyMD names Amazon Clinic, 98point6 and AmerisourceBergen on its own site, the strongest customer roster in the set, and it sits inside DocGo, a public company whose filings you can actually read. Its clinical operations depth is the most thoroughly documented here: licensing, credentialing, malpractice coverage, NP supervision with 24/7 supervising physicians, 200,000+ visits a month.

The current public site does not clearly present a company-level SOC 2 type, LegitScript certification or ISO certification page. Older SteadyMD content does use HIPAA-compliant language, so HIPAA should not be described as absent altogether. SteadyMD primarily sells clinical workforce and infrastructure rather than a turnkey branded storefront, so buyers still need to understand what product layer they must build themselves.

Best for: buyers who need a clinician network with a checkable track record.

Beluga Health: best physician-led protocol design

Beluga is physician-founded and physician-led, with Jonah Mink MD named as CEO and co-founder, and it says so in a category where most About pages name nobody. It is self-funded, profitable since 2020 by its own account, and it states that all physicians rather than physician extenders treat patients, which is a real clinical design decision rather than a slogan.

Then it discloses less than many vendors courting founders. Pricing is not published and is instead shared during the scoping process. We also did not find a public provider count, named customer roster, named pharmacy partner or 503A/503B designation on the pages reviewed. Its site displays compliance and certification badges, but buyers should request the underlying reports or certification records rather than treating badge artwork alone as evidence.

Best for: brands that want physician-designed clinical protocols and will accept a scoping call before any numbers.

Bask Health: best for named references and self-serve evaluation

Bask names customer brands with attributed quotes from real people, offers a "Try for free" path so you can evaluate without a sales call, and states both 503A and 503B on its integrations page, alongside connectivity to 30+ pharmacies. Its LegitScript seal carries a correctly formatted eight-digit ID.

Two problems. Its headline scale figures contradict each other across its own pages by roughly 1.7x on transaction volume and 3x on orders. And its real prices ($499 and $3,500 a month) appear in a July 2026 blog post under plan names that do not match the plan names on its actual pricing page.

Best for: buyers who want to talk to named references and trial the product first.

DrCare247 and MyTelemedicine: the SERP incumbents worth knowing about

These two rank near the top of Google for this category, so they will show up in your research whether or not they fit.

MyTelemedicine is the more established: a Texas entity since 2015, with a nationwide clinician network and 24/7 care coordination, supporting "over 100 white-labels and 5 million+ patients." It publishes no B2B pricing or specific clinician count. On the public pages reviewed, we did not find a clearly disclosed pharmacy-fulfillment or e-prescribing layer, so operators planning medication programs should confirm those capabilities directly rather than assuming they are absent.

DrCare247 markets a broad stack that includes software, a credentialed multi-state clinician network, Surescripts e-prescribing, laboratory integrations and compounding plus retail pharmacy connectivity. Its current site also identifies Genix Technologies and publishes company contact information, so the earlier criticism about an undisclosed underlying entity is no longer fair. The remaining disclosure gaps are more specific: no public B2B pricing, no clinician headcount, no named pharmacy facility and no owned 503A/503B designation on the pages reviewed.

MyOrbitHealth: a note on the article that prompted this one

MyOrbitHealth publishes a competing comparison that ranks seven vendors and places itself first, without disclosing anywhere on the page that it publishes the list. We include it here because a disclosure standard that exempts the loudest voice in the category is not a standard.

On the six questions, MyOrbitHealth still publishes no B2B price and no 503A/503B designation on the pages reviewed, but it now does publish a specific provider figure: 1,240+ board-certified providers across 38 specialties. Its homepage separately says 20+ medical specialties, so the scale language is internally inconsistent. It also now states "SOC 2 - Type II controls & audit" on its homepage while other pages use broader SOC 2 wording. The fair criticism is therefore inconsistency and lack of independent corroboration, not absence of those disclosures altogether.

It ranked FUSE fifth, labelled it "best for peptide-only brands," and listed as a con: "Peptides only; no room to expand verticals on-platform."

That is worth answering properly.

Why the peptide vertical is the hardest test, not the smallest one

The logic behind "peptide-only" is that a platform built for one category must be less capable than one covering ten. Applied to peptides, that is backwards.

Peptide programs are where telehealth compliance gets scrutinised hardest, and where infrastructure either holds up or does not. The FDA maintains a list of bulk drug substances that may present significant safety risks when compounded, and it currently includes GHRP-2, GHRP-6, ipamorelin acetate and kisspeptin-10, all flagged for immunogenicity risk. Payment processors decline the vertical outright. LegitScript reviews it closely. Compounding has to route correctly between a 503A pharmacy filling patient-specific prescriptions and a 503B outsourcing facility operating under cGMP and FDA registration. Advertising rules catch operators who never saw them coming.

A platform that runs cleanly in that environment has cleared a higher bar than one running urgent care visits.

And the compliance layer does not get harder when you add GLP-1 or hormone therapy. It gets easier, because those categories draw less regulatory heat than the one the platform was built to survive. Which is why FUSE already runs semaglutide, tirzepatide, testosterone, NAD+ and minoxidil programs on the same rails. Peptides were the proving ground. They were never the ceiling.

Worth knowing if you are pricing a GLP-1 program: FDA initially determined the tirzepatide shortage resolved on October 2, 2024 and, after reevaluation, issued a new resolution determination on December 19, 2024. FDA determined the semaglutide shortage resolved in February 2025, and the relevant enforcement-discretion periods for compounding ended in 2025. Any vendor still offering compounded GLP-1 programs should be able to explain, in writing, the legal pathway it is relying on now.

503A vs 503B pharmacy: the difference that decides what you can sell

To qualify for the relevant section 503A exemptions, compounding generally must be based on a valid patient-specific prescription or meet the statute's conditions for anticipatory compounding. A 503B outsourcing facility registers with FDA, is subject to cGMP requirements, is inspected on a risk-based schedule, and may distribute against prescriptions or certain non-patient-specific healthcare-provider orders such as office stock.

Neither one produces an FDA-approved drug. That is the part operators most often get wrong.

Which designation fills your orders changes three practical things: what inventory you may legally hold, how you may advertise and prescribe the product, and what a state board expects to see when it asks. Only three of the 13 vendors we checked disclose this on a page they sell from. Ask every vendor directly, in writing, and request the registration document rather than a verbal answer.

Corporate practice of medicine: how the PC and MSO structure works

A non-clinician can own the non-clinical side of a telehealth business in many structures, but whether and how that works depends on state law. The legal separation between clinical practice and management functions must be designed for the states in which the program operates.

Many states prohibit or restrict non-physician ownership or control of medical practices, while the corporate practice of medicine rules vary substantially by jurisdiction. A common structure is a physician-owned professional entity that delivers clinical care alongside a management services organization (MSO) that handles non-clinical brand, marketing and administrative services under contract. The exact structure must be checked against the laws of the states in which the program operates.

The brand or MSO may control non-clinical operations, while licensed clinicians must retain independent authority over diagnosis, prescribing and other clinical decisions. Some full-stack vendors supply or connect the professional-entity layer; software-layer vendors generally leave more of that structure to the operator.

Ask any vendor in writing which entity employs the prescribers and which entity holds the pharmacy relationships, because that structure is exactly what a state board will examine.

LegitScript certification cost and timeline: where the launch weeks actually go

When a vendor quotes you a launch date, the useful question is whether that date includes LegitScript certification and merchant account approval. It usually does not, and that gap is where the months go.

LegitScript charges $975 to apply and $2,150 a year per website and offers a $2,500 expedited option. Its current public pages are inconsistent on expedited timing: the Healthcare Certification page says review begins within two business days, while the general Certification FAQ says within five business days after screening. Payment processor approval then runs on its own clock.

Published launch claims in this study run from same-day to 21 days, and software configuration genuinely is that fast. Several vendors publish launch claims that differ between pages on their own sites, which is a reason to get the timeline into your contract rather than reading it off a homepage.

Run this check yourself on any white label telehealth vendor

Five questions for any vendor in this category. Ask them before the demo, in writing, and treat a non-answer as an answer.

1. What is the total first-year cost, including setup, per-consult, per-prescription, merchant-service and other transaction fees? Not the monthly headline. Cuvo's published setup charges now range from $12,000 to $50,000 by tier, while FUSE lists no separate setup charge but a separate FUSE-branded page lists a 3.00% merchant service fee. Model every vendor on the fees that apply at your expected volume.
2. How many prescribers hold active licenses in my top five states? Nobody publishes this. Everybody can answer it. Get it in email.
3. Are my medications compounded at a 503A pharmacy or a 503B outsourcing facility, and can I see the registration? These are different legal animals, and which one fills your orders changes what you may hold, how you may advertise, and what a board expects to see.
4. Who is the merchant of record, and who owns the patient relationship if I leave? This decides whether you have a business or a rented audience.
5. What is your SOC 2 type, when was the last report, and will you share it under NDA? A badge is marketing. A report is evidence. And while you are there: HHS states plainly that it "does not certify any persons or products as 'HIPAA compliant,'" so any vendor using the phrase "HIPAA certified" has told you something about its diligence.

Pick the vendor that tells you the most, not the one that promises the most

Every white label telehealth platform in this category will tell you it is compliant, fast and built for operators. Those claims are functionally identical across 13 websites, which makes them useless as a decision input.

What separates these providers is what they will put in writing before you pay.

On that measure the category still performs unevenly. Only one of 13 publishes a specific provider-network figure, and that figure is vendor-reported rather than independently verified. Eight do not publish B2B pricing that a buyer can fully budget against. Three state a 503A or 503B designation on a B2B page, while five state a SOC 2 type somewhere on a public page. When you read a comparison in this category, check whether each number appears on the vendor's own current site and whether the wording matches the scope being claimed.

FUSE published its pricing, its per-visit fee policy, its pharmacy routing and its four operating metrics because an operator making a decision this consequential should not have to book a call to learn what something costs. That was a deliberate choice, and it is the exact thing this scorecard measures.

If you are choosing a platform this quarter, do this next: bring the five questions above to a call, and start with the vendor whose answers you can already check.

Methodology and disclosure

Primary sources for this article are the 13 vendor websites listed above, rechecked on 2 September 2026. Regulatory and standards claims are drawn from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (section 503A and 503B compounding requirements and GLP-1 shortage notices), the Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HIPAA certification guidance), the American Medical Association (corporate practice of medicine), the AICPA (SOC 2 reporting), and LegitScript's published fee and certification guidance.

This article compares white label telehealth platforms on what they disclose publicly. It is not medical or legal advice and does not recommend any treatment. Prescribing decisions are made by licensed clinicians. Vendor claims were rechecked against publicly accessible first-party pages on 2 September 2026 and may change after publication. Operating figures attributed to FUSE Health are published on fusehealth.com.

References

1. FDA. Certain Bulk Drug Substances for Use in Compounding That May Present Significant Safety Risks.
2. FDA. Compounding Laws and Policies (sections 503A and 503B).
3. FDA. FDA Clarifies Policies for Compounders as National GLP-1 Supply Begins to Stabilize.
4. U.S. Code. 21 U.S.C. 353a - Pharmacy compounding.
5. Public Law 113-54. Drug Quality and Security Act (2013).
6. HHS Office for Civil Rights. What You Should Know About OCR HIPAA Privacy Rule Guidance Materials.
7. American Medical Association. State Legislative Approaches to Curb Corporate Influence in Health Care.
8. LegitScript. Healthcare Certification Pricing.
9. LegitScript. Certification FAQ.
10. LegitScript. LegitScript Reports 137% Growth in Enterprise Certification (23 February 2026).