Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the GoodRx second quarter 2026 earnings call. As a reminder, today's conference call is being recorded. I would now like to introduce your host for today's call, Aubrey Reynolds, Director of Investor Relations. Ms. Reynolds, you may begin. Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to GoodRx's earnings conference call for the second quarter 2026. Joining me today are Wendy Barnes, our Chief Executive Officer, and Justin Fengler, our newly appointed 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 the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31st, 2025, and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, could cause actual results, performance, or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements made on this call. Any such forward-looking statements represent management's estimates as of the date of this call, and we disclaim any obligation to update these statements, even if subsequent events cause our views to change. In addition, we will be referencing certain Non-GAAP metrics in today's remarks. We have reconciled each Non-GAAP metric to the nearest GAAP metric in the company's earnings press release, which can be found on the Overview page of our investor relations website at investors.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 second quarter was a strong quarter for GoodRx. We exceeded our revenue expectations, maintained disciplined profitability, and saw meaningful consumer engagement across the platform. That performance was driven by the two strategic priorities we outlined at the beginning of the year. First, Pharma Direct, which is scaling quickly due to growing manufacturer adoption of consumer direct pricing programs and sustained strength in GLP-1 access. Second, subscriptions, which are becoming a central part of how we serve and retain consumers, as illustrated by the launch of our newest offering, GoodRx Companion, in May. Based on our first full half performance and the trends we are seeing across the business, we are raising our full year revenue and adjusted EBITDA outlook, which we will discuss in more detail later in the call. We are confident this puts us on a path to return to year-over-year revenue growth this year, earlier than previously anticipated, and reinforces our belief that GoodRx is building a more durable growth profile. That durability is rooted in a combination of assets that work together, a trusted brand, a large high intent audience, and a nationwide pharmacy network. Each year, we see over 280 million site visits across our platform when cost and access are shaping prescription decisions. That gives manufacturers, retail pharmacy partners, and plan sponsors a scaled channel to make pricing, access, and savings programs visible and usable for consumers. As more partners bring programs to GoodRx, we are able to deliver better prices, broader access, and more useful products directly to consumers, giving them more reasons to return to our platform, increasing engagement and strengthening our revenue base over time. The market backdrop reinforces why this matters. Affordability pressures continue to intensify. Consumers are bearing more cost, facing less predictable coverage, and increasingly need to know what a medication will cost before they reach the pharmacy counter. For example, in the ACA marketplace, nearly three million fewer people are enrolled following the expiration of enhanced subsidies. In early 2027, rate filings point to another year of significant premium increases. Employers are under the same pressure. As costs rise, many are covering less or shifting more of the expense to employees. Across the board, coverage is becoming harder to maintain and more expensive to use. That makes execution our priority. Our focus now is to continue scaling the programs gaining traction, make them even easier for consumers to use, and turn the progress we demonstrated in the second quarter into sustained growth. Before I move into the business updates, I want to address yesterday's leadership announcement. Chris McGinnis has transitioned from his role as Chief Financial Officer. On behalf of our board and management team, I want to thank Chris for his contributions to GoodRx, including his partnership during my first year as Chief Executive Officer and his leadership of the finance organization. Effective today, Justin Fengler, who currently serves as our Chief Strategy and Operations Officer, will take on the additional role of Chief Financial Officer. Justin has been with GoodRx for more than 10 years and has a deep understanding of the business, our financial model, our corporate development activities, and how we operate. In his current role, he has helped connect our corporate strategy to the priorities, investments, M&A, and execution plans that guide the company. That experience, combined with his background in investment banking and consulting, makes him well positioned to lead the finance organization. You'll hear directly from Justin later in the call as he reviews our quarterly financial performance and outlook. With that, I'll turn back to the quarter and walk through our business updates. Starting with Pharma Direct. Q2 was a standout quarter, with revenue growing 76% year-over-year and 18% quarter-over-quarter, supported by strength in consumer direct pricing and advertising solutions that extend well beyond any single therapeutic category. We now have more than 135 consumer direct pricing programs, including the addition of top brands like JARDIANCE, Nurtec ODT, Otezla, and Rapaflo. Reinforcing the role GoodRx is playing in helping manufacturers bring affordability programs directly to consumers at scale. GLP-1s remain one of the clearest examples of the value of that model. Demand remains strong, coverage remains limited or inconsistent, and the category is evolving rapidly as new therapies, formulations, and price points come to market. During the quarter, we supported several important launches and expansions, including Ozempic pill, Wegovy HD, Foundayo, and Zepbound KwikPen. These are in addition to our support of the Wegovy pill launch earlier this year, as well as continued partnership with all other FDA-approved GLP-1 brands. GoodRx has become one of the leading consumer access channels for GLP-1 medications in the U.S., giving manufacturers a scaled way to turn pricing strategies into consumer access. We believe GoodRx's role in GLP-1 access will remain important as the category evolves. Demand for GLP-1 therapies is growing rapidly, particularly in the self-pay segment, and we expect that momentum to persist for the foreseeable future. Coverage models are also changing, such as the Medicare GLP-1 Bridge Program that launched on July 1st and runs through the end of 2027, offering $50 pricing on certain GLP-1 therapies to eligible Medicare beneficiaries. We are watching adoption closely, but Medicare-aged consumers represent a modest share of GLP-1 users on our platform today, and this program includes specific authorization, eligibility, and processing requirements that naturally limit its reach. Given the scale of demand and variation in coverage, we expect transparent self-pay access to maintain an important part of the market, creating ongoing opportunity across both Pharma Direct and GoodRx for Weight Loss. At the same time, the strength of Pharma Direct extends well beyond GLP-1. We continue to deepen our partnerships with a more focused group of large pharmaceutical manufacturers, prioritizing strategic relationships with companies that have leading high-value brands. As a result, our average deal size has increased year-over-year, reflecting both the expansion of existing partnerships and greater alignment around enterprise scale programs. That breadth reduces concentration in any one category and gives us multiple avenues to compound growth over time. This strategy reinforces our ability to deliver meaningful value to manufacturers while driving more efficient, durable growth across our Pharma Direct offering. Turning to subscriptions. The number of subscription plans increased 14% year-over-year. Subscriptions are becoming a central part of how we serve and retain consumers, which is why we are shifting more product and marketing investment toward this model. They allow us to deliver value beyond an individual prescription, build deeper relationships with consumers, and help address a broader set of healthcare needs. That is increasingly important as consumers face higher out-of-pocket costs and less predictable coverage and look for solutions that can complement insurance. A key step in that work was the launch of GoodRx Companion in May, our new subscription offering designed to make everyday healthcare more affordable and predictable. Companion is available for $14.99 per month or $9.99 per month with an annual plan and offers 200 free generic medications, hundreds more for under $10, affordable online care visits, and savings across dental, vision, labs, and imaging. It is especially valuable for consumers managing chronic conditions, taking multiple medications, or navigating coverage limitations where out-of-pocket costs can be difficult to anticipate. While we are not discontinuing GoodRx Gold, Companion is now our primary subscription offering with a broader nationwide pharmacy network, richer benefits, and consistently lower prices. Early adoption has been encouraging. We believe Companion gives us a broader membership platform to meet more of consumers' everyday healthcare needs. In addition, we continue to see growth across our condition-specific subscription offerings led by GoodRx for Weight Loss, with ED and hair loss also contributing. Together with Companion, these offerings give us more ways to address healthcare needs where affordability, access, and convenience are meaningful barriers. That is why we are reorienting more of the GoodRx experience around subscriptions, including making them the primary call to action across key surfaces such as our homepage and price pages. We believe this more integrated membership model can deliver greater value to consumers, deepen engagement, improve retention, and support more durable recurring revenue. Now turning to Rx Marketplace. Performance in the second quarter was in line with our expectations, reflecting the sequential moderation we discussed on our last call and our decision to direct more marketing and product investment toward our subscription offerings. As subscriptions grow, some transactions that would have historically flowed through Rx Marketplace will instead be served through our subscription offerings. That will moderate prescription transaction revenue and max over time, but we view it as a positive evolution of the business. Consumers receive more value, pharmacies benefit from increased prescription volume and stronger patient retention. GoodRx builds deeper consumer relationships while generating subscription revenue with higher lifetime value. Companion is a clear example of how we are providing value to both consumers and our retail pharmacy partners. It gives members access to meaningfully lower prices than they would receive through a traditional prescription discount, while allowing them to continue filling at the pharmacies they already know and trust. It also delivers that value at no additional cost to retail partners. That makes Companion an important way to strengthen the consumer experience while reinforcing the value of our retail pharmacy network. We are also continuing to strengthen the network itself. Our direct contracting model gives us a better foundation to support retailer economics and improve the consumer experience at the counter. Our e-commerce capability is now live at nearly 6,000 pharmacies nationwide, allowing consumers to engage digitally before arriving at the pharmacy and helping retail partners reduce friction and better capture demand. We are also extending the reach of our network into new channels. In May, we brought our nationwide pharmacy access to Trump Rx as a launch partner for generics, giving consumers more choice in where they fill. Turning to Employer Direct. Building on the work we introduced last quarter, we are developing a significant and growing pipeline with partners expected to go live in Q4 and into Q1. Our initial focus is GLP-1s, where we combine manufacturer pricing enabled by Pharma Direct with the consumer-facing care and engagement model we built through GoodRx for Weight Loss. We also plan to integrate GoodRx Companion, giving employers the ability to subsidize the membership cost for employees and expand access to affordable generic medications. Employer Direct creates the channel to bring those capabilities to plan sponsors at scale, helping lower costs for employers and out-of-pocket prices for employees, including through employer-funded wellness accounts that can be used toward eligible medication costs and related care. While still early, the employer response reinforces our view that GoodRx can help plan sponsors address prescription affordability in a more flexible and targeted way. We plan to have more to report in future quarters as these programs target serving larger employee populations. As we scale these growth initiatives, we are also focused on improving how quickly and efficiently we execute. AI is becoming a more intentional part of the GoodRx operating model, with the focus on redesigning workflows, reducing manual work, and helping teams execute faster. We are hiring talent and investing in capabilities to embed AI more deeply into how we build and scale the platform, which we believe can accelerate product delivery and support greater operating leverage over time. I will now turn the call over to Justin to discuss second quarter results. Thank you, Wendy, and good morning, everyone. We delivered another strong quarter with revenue of $200.4 million and adjusted EBITDA of $63.7 million, representing an adjusted EBITDA margin of 31.8%. Our results were driven by continued momentum across our Pharma Direct and subscriptions offering, which are becoming a larger portion of overall revenue. Turning to our revenue performance by offering, prescription transactions revenue was $106.4 million, in line with the outlook we previously provided. Monthly Active Consumers totaled 5 million, down 12% year-over-year and down sequentially, reflecting normal seasonality in our integrated savings program and a deliberate shift of product and marketing investment towards our new subscription offerings. Overall, these trends are unfolding as planned and consistent with the operating assumptions underlying our guidance. Pharma Direct revenue was $61.6 million, up 76% year-over-year, as we continue to deepen manufacturer partnerships and expand our consumer direct pricing platform. Our growth reflected continued momentum in our GLP-1 access programs, complemented by strong execution across our non-GLP-1 business. Subscription revenue increased to $28.5 million, up 39% year-over-year, driven by the ongoing demand for our condition-specific offerings, particularly weight loss. The number of our subscription plans increased 14% year-over-year, also benefiting from the launch of GoodRx Companion in May. Turning now to our outlook for the rest of the year. Based on our strong first half performance and continued execution, we are raising our full year revenue guidance to a range of $790 million-$805 million. At the midpoint, we would return to year-over-year growth earlier than we had previously anticipated, demonstrating that our strategy to diversify our revenue base is delivering results ahead of plan. This improved outlook reflects the continued strength of the business, particularly within Pharma Direct, where we now expect revenue to grow more than 70% year-over-year. As we progress through the second half of the year, we expect the growth generated by Pharma Direct and our subscriptions offerings to more than offset declines in prescription transactions revenue. Based on the strength of our operating performance, coupled with our continued focus on disciplined execution, we are also raising our adjusted EBITDA guidance to a range of $240 million-$250 million, underscoring our ability to drive profitable growth while continuing to invest in our strategic priorities. With that, I will turn the call back over to Wendy. Thanks, Justin. The second quarter showed that our strategy is working. We delivered results ahead of expectations, raised our full-year outlook, and saw continued growth in Pharma Direct and subscriptions, the two growth engines we said would drive the business this year. From here, our focus is consistent execution, driving the programs already in market and in our pipeline towards sustained utilization, while continuing to strengthen the experience that keeps consumers coming back. As we deliver against that plan, we are confident it will translate into a more durable growth profile and long-term value for consumers, partners, and shareholders. With that, I'll turn the call over to the operator for questions. Thank you. At this time, we will conduct a question- and- answer session. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please stand by while we compile the question-and-answer roster. Our first question comes from the line of Charles Rhyee with TD Cowen. Please go ahead. Thanks for taking the questions. Wanted to talk about overall performance for the business, because obviously we now have these different subgroups, PTR, Pharma Direct, subscriptions, and each of these has different kind of metrics. Ultimately, at the end of the day, is it right to think that people are going, using GoodRx, getting prescriptions filled? If that's really the case, can you give us a sense of how many prescriptions you are filling across the different buckets and, as you talk about a return to growth, maybe talk conceptually, what are the kind of metrics that you are thinking about providing investors? I feel like the way the business is set up right now, it kind of makes it difficult for people to figure out where this is growing. Obviously, we see revenue growth, but if we think about what people are really focused on, and I ask that because we see MAC continues to kind of decline year-over-year, and just, it's kind of hard to gain a lot of confidence if we don't see that number start to flatten a little bit. Anything that you could help us in terms of maybe more like a prescription type of metric would be helpful. Yeah. It's a great comment, Charles, and thanks for the question. I know we've alluded in periods past to evaluating KPIs that we provide to the street and things like that. I think you're exactly right in terms of the MAC number, because that just pertains to prescription transaction revenue, isn't necessarily perfect, and is also not necessarily an indicator of success in the business. As we kind of talked about on the call, we're actively transitioning more people into subscription offerings, which allow us to have a closer relationship with the customer, allows us to drive more value for the customer, and allows us to have a higher lifetime value with those people. If anybody goes to our website now, they'll see us certainly pushing that on the homepage, the price page, things of that nature. To the point of what are the KPIs that we're pushing, we're still evaluating that. We're not going to come out this quarter and say, "Hey, we're going to move to this, that, or the other." Number of prescriptions, things of that nature, are certainly things that we're looking at, and I think that at some point in the future, you would expect us to have something a bit different. It's certainly too early today for us to talk about that. As we think about what are the goals that we're looking for, it's long-term durable revenue, and how are we actually leveraging the power of our brand to deliver value to consumers and ultimately have a durable revenue base that's growing. As we're transitioning the business from a PTR base more into pharma and subs, we think that that's a good evolution of the business. Yeah, I would add n ot much. No, please, go ahead. Sorry, go ahead. What's your follow-up question? No, please. Yeah. No, I was going to ask, so I understand that, but I am just curious to the extent that, when you are working with pharma companies, with Pharma Direct, clearly they are looking at the GoodRx platform saying, "Hey, look at this significant number of consumers that constantly come to this site to engage and look up prices for drugs," which at the core was built around the PTR model. What is the right level in PTR that you would say you need to have that critical mass that makes it relevant for pharma to want to work with you guys? It is interesting, Charles, because, yeah, when you think about PTR revenue, that is only a sub-component of the monetization, because when you think about people coming to brand drug price pages, they are not actually a MAC necessarily, right? They are people that are looking for copay affordability or things like that that would never actually make their way into that MAC number. What we look at here, and kind of what everything starts with at GoodRx, is the power of the brand. How many people know about us? Is it a good story? Do we have a high NPS? Are people resonating? Or sorry, we have over 280 million site visits every year, and I think that certainly, those people or those site visits and the number of those site visits that make their way into price pages and into subscriptions is a leading indicator of how we look at that strength. Yeah. Charles, I would just add is to your pointed question regarding the types of things that pharma is looking for in partnering with us. Clearly, they are looking for a high-intent audience that is going to help drive volume to their specific Brand programs, and we have delivered time and time again for them on those specific programs. So much so that when we benchmark utilizing third-party sources to do so as to how those programs would have performed either in their own brand.com or with other channels that they could choose to push cash pricing in, we perpetually outperform. These ROI comparisons sometimes can be 8x, 10x, 12x, 16x, 18x, given the high-intent audience we have. That is tied to a number of things. By high intent, more descriptively, we mean consumers that are showing up very frequently with the prescription already in hand, and they're simply looking for the right channel, for affordability. As we've pointed out in a couple of previous calls, interestingly, a significant percentage of that audience also has insurance. Again, they've compared it to ostensibly what their out-of-pocket would've been, having been covered, and in many instances, choosing the cash option. For that reason, that is one of the reasons that the number of Pharma programs, I believe at this point exceeding 135 direct-to-consumer programs, that's why this continued to proliferate and why we are going deeper in our Pharma partnerships. That's kind of how we're thinking about certainly how we measure KPIs with that direct relationship. I don't know that those are things we'd necessarily contemplate as a metric in the broader sense for the company. Those certainly are metrics that are trending incredibly strong within the different components of the business. We hear you, we understand the ask for a broader business metric. It's something we continue to kick around with our board. It's certainly a bit of a challenge when you're in transition of your business model. Certainly changing a metric in the middle of your fiscal year is never a good idea. We're contemplating what that potentially could be going into 2027. Great. I appreciate the comments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Daniel Grosslight with Citi. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks for taking the question. Some really nice results in Pharma Direct. That's great to see. I'm wondering if you could kind of double-click a little bit on Pharma Direct and maybe quantify or provide some commentary around how important the GLP-1 drug class is to Pharma Direct, particularly the launch of orals. As we think about the Bridge Program, and perhaps some leveling off of the new launches, how we should be thinking about a sustainable growth rate in the Pharma Direct segment. Thanks. Thank you for the question. One, candidly, we probably presumed that we would get today. We'll probably have it in the same conversation and several follow-ups, too. Look, unequivocally, GLP-1s have been an important part of our Pharma Direct growth story, and they will continue to be. As we look forward through even 2030, 2031, the ongoing growth opportunity, both in Medicare-eligible and non-Medicare-eligible consumers, is considerable. That's, in my mind, a bit of thing one, but I think it's also important to point out that we have grown considerably in our non-GLP-1 drug partnerships. All of those deals in both of those categories are up substantially year-over-year. We think the ongoing partnership, pointing more back to the GLP-1 component, our ability to support telehealth, our subscription offering around weight loss will continue to be more important to support that category, to include the launch of additional molecules in the coming years. As it pertains to the other portion of your question, around the orals, we've seen considerable growth in those particular formulations, and we're continuing to see that, without specific commentary on some of the comments, earnings-wise, from manufacturers as to what they're seeing in their broader book. I can just simply tell you that within our consumer set, it continues to be healthy and growing. Other things you'd add, Justin? No. Look, I think that Wendy commented on the GLPs. I would say what we see on our side is not just strength in that segment. I think that that part, the component of the Pharma Direct is very strong, but also, on the non-GLP side as well, we see good growth there. I think that we're excited for the segment. Obviously, we increased the Pharma Direct guidance range from 50%- 70% this quarter. I think that certainly this year it's going to be a really, really strong year, and certainly on the GLP side, there's many, many more years of strength as this category continues to have new launches and grows. We're not getting into the game of long-term guidance here, and we're certainly going to talk about next year when next year arrives. It's certainly an area of the business that is performing very strong. Thank you. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Cherny with Leerink Partners. Please go ahead. Good morning, and thank you for taking the question. Maybe if I could just dive in on Pharma Direct and the growth and positioning of the business. Obviously, it's been a standout in the quarter, in the year, and the acceleration of guidance. As you think about the continued ramp with new manufacturer partners, anything about capacity that you have to worry about, manage for? Is there any balance or incremental investments needed to support this level of growth above and beyond what you would typically expect for a ramp on a new project? Thank you. Morning, Michael. Thank you for the question. No, the short answer is that I don't anticipate a ton of incremental costs to continue to scale Pharma Direct. We've largely already invested in the appropriate sales force and supporting infrastructure. Be that as it may, Laura, who I think you've met on previous calls, who's our Chief Commercial Officer, has full permission to come to us as she sees fit, managing that P&L if she thinks there are different supportive resources she needs. There's nothing I'm anticipating, even in the short or midterm, that would require significant cost to support growth there. We're largely set up to continue to add additional consumer direct partnerships with pharma. What would you add from your lens, Justin? Yeah, look, I think from the pharma business, that's 31% of our revenue this quarter, so it's certainly already becoming a scaled part of the offering. We have an established team here that's been with the business for many, many years. In terms of incremental investment, I think we'll assess that in the future. I don't expect anything dramatic as we look to continue to expand the business. Again, I think a lot of that comes back to the power of the brand and the platform, 280 million site visits. A lot of this stuff is built in terms of how we're monetizing and reaching consumers, which is an amazing part of the GoodRx brand. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Stan Berenshteyn from Wells Fargo Securities. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Maybe I'll follow up on Pharma Direct. As we think about the balance of the year, how active is your pipeline there, and can you compare that to same time last year? Maybe just a quick follow-up on gross margin. If we just think about the revenue mix persisting here, where do you expect gross margin will shake out, going forward here? Thanks. Yeah, thanks for the question, Stan. From a bookings perspective, much of the bookings happen at the beginning of the year, even before the year began. We have really good line of sight for the full year revenue picture for Pharma Direct. I think it's not something where we're chasing a whole bunch of stuff in the back half of the year. In terms of gross margin, we're not going to guide to a particular number there. You've seen that cost to revenue number come up on a year-over-year basis. Some of that's due to the cost to serve some of the subscription offerings as those become a bigger part of the revenue mix. Not something that we're guiding to and not something that we're going to see material changes on throughout the rest of the year. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Jailendra Singh with Truist Securities. Please go ahead. Thank you, and thanks for taking my questions. With all the coverage changes we've been seeing year to date around Medicaid exchanges, have you seen any of that impact your business positively or negatively thus far? Are you capturing any of these developments in your updated outlook for second half? Any general thoughts you can share around these developments would be helpful. Hi, Jailendra. Good morning, and thank you for the question. Being as transparent as I can, on a macro level, we do absolutely believe that the continued drop in coverage coupled with, whether it's ACA, whether it's Medicaid rosters, or whether it's just candidly a number of employers who are reducing coverage, either number of drugs they're covering and/or increasing the out-of-pocket burden on their employees. We unequivocally believe that those are tailwinds pointing towards both our companion product being a complement to insurance in addition to traditional coupon usage. As to my ability as of this first week of August to tell you definitively that we've tracked some of those trends specifically being tied to volume in our business, the short answer is no. I can't tell you that with conviction. On a macro level, all of those things do seem to point to a pretty large opportunity for cash. I think when you just couple that with what is the pipeline of employers with interest in our employer direct and/or companion in tandem with the really strong uptake we've had since launching Companion, it would indicate that those things appear to be related. I can't tell you that definitively with data. Great. One quick follow-up. With all the recent developments and interest around peptides market, I was just curious to get your thoughts on the opportunity there. Is that on your radar, or will this market be ever of your interest? What would you need to see before leaning more meaningfully into this market? Any thoughts would be helpful. Yeah. Gosh, it's actually generated a fair bit of conversation, both amongst our leadership team and candidly with our board. The short answer is yes, we think it could be an opportunity. With what the FDA met on, it was either last week or the week prior, to be clear, that wasn't explicit approval. I mean, at this point, it still would require a regulatory review before those specific molecules would be approved for either compounding pathways supported by the FDA. Be that as it may, we're watching it quite closely, and what we do know is that if they pass all of the rigor through the FDA, that our ability to play, we think would be strong, but we would do so from a position of strong clinical integrity, in addition to a well-vetted/credentialed compounding pharmacy partnership or partnerships. Again, in keeping with really how we've approached giving consumers access to affordable prescriptions, we would approach it very similarly. Perhaps in summary, I would just say, yes, it's of interest. Yes, we're contemplating it, provided that those additional regulatory pathways receive check marks through the government. Great. Thanks a lot. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Craig Hettenbach with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hi, this is Jay on for Craig. Thanks for taking my question. On condition-specific offerings like the ED, hair loss, and weight loss, now that some cohorts are reaching the eight to 12 month mark, can you share how are the retention and churn trending? And then specifically within weight loss, can you share any early read on GLP-1 persistence or churn relative to your other offerings even though the data is still early? Thank you. Yeah, thanks for the question, Jay. In terms of churn and retention amongst the offerings, it's not a KPI or metric that we're putting out there right now. I'd say you're right on the condition-specific offerings. For weight loss and ED and hair loss, those have been in the market for a while. We're continuing to invest in product marketing, reactivation, kind of all of those good, normal features that you would have. I think we continue to internally look at those as things that we want to move the needle on. Companion, look, we just launched that offering in May, I think the early progress on that has been strong, and we're very encouraged by that. I think that we feel good about where we are, which you can see from a revenue growth perspective of 39% year-over-year and 17% quarter-over-quarter, from a subscription plan perspective. If you also look at those, certainly the value of the subscription is going up as well, because revenue is obviously outpacing the number of plans. From kind of that ARPU perspective, we feel good about where the business is headed. All of these are things that we have big teams and a lot of investment moving towards because we know they're such important metrics for us. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Brian Tanquilut with Jefferies. Please go ahead. Good morning, Brian. You might be muted. Good morning. Sorry about that. Congrats on the quarter. Maybe Chris, my question for you, as I think about the strong free cash flow performance during the quarter and the buyback that you spent, I mean, just curious how you're thinking about capital allocation, especially given where the stock's valuation is today. Thanks. This is Justin. Good to talk to you. From a capital allocation standpoint, I don't think anything has really changed in terms of how we're looking at that. We didn't do any buybacks this last quarter. Free cash flow, as you said, was very good. The first thing that we're going to look at from an allocation of capital perspective is investing in the business. In particular, they are the areas that we highlighted where we have a right to win and a lot of momentum, which is what we're doing with subscriptions and what we're doing with pharma. Certainly, opportunistically, we're going to look at M&A and other capital items, not something that we have active plans we're going to talk about here. I would say first and foremost, it's investing in the business for long-term durable growth. That's our number one, two, and three priority. Thank you. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Allen Lutz with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Good morning, and thanks for taking the question. For Wendy or for Justin here, I want to follow up on Charles' question at the top, just around there's a lot of moving pieces here as we think about the different parts of the business, and obviously the business is in flux. Would love to just, from a high level, talk about the expectations around prescription transaction revenue over the next couple quarters, the expectation for Max into the end of the year, and then maybe offsetting that, the expectations for subscription revenue and subscriber growth. I guess, maybe talk about those together. Can they offset each other? Just trying to get a sense of how those two items are going to transition into the end of the year and into 2027. Thanks. Yeah. Thanks for the question, Allen. Good question. Certainly in our prepared remarks, we talked about active decisions that we're making around pushing more people into our subscriptions offering, whether it's Companion or Condition. I think that that's something from a durability of revenue perspective and ability of value, or amount of value that we're able to deliver to consumers, is something that we're going to actively push. A lot of these choices are active decisions that are good, that we feel like are good for the business long term. In terms of what that means for Max, there's certainly, I think we would expect continued moderation on that line as we move more people into subscriptions. The one thing that I would just note so that we're not getting too far ahead of ourselves is that, subscriptions, particularly Companion, is a new offering. We just launched that in May of this year. As we manage kind of the acquisition funnels for that, the retention tactics and things of that nature, it's going to be growth in terms of how well developed that product is. Certainly the third quarter, fourth quarter as we go into next year, I think we expect to get sequentially better. We're focused on moving those big KPIs, but really, we're not looking at that as optimizing revenue from a subscriptions perspective for 2026. We're really focused on investing in things that are going to help us in the long term, 2027, 2028, 2029, et cetera, and building a really good foundation that makes this product the best product out there in the market. Thank you. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of George Hill of Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Good morning, guys, and thanks for taking the question. I just kind of wanted to focus on the emerging Companion Direct and the Employer Direct offering, and I wanted to talk about product positioning, because the Companion Direct product actually seems pretty interesting. It seems like it could fit well in almost the alternative health plan space, given how it's constructed and what it looks like. I could see pretty interesting growth there. With Employer Direct, I also see you would kind of technically be going head to head against your PBM partners, who probably don't love that idea. It's an interesting needle to try to thread with how both of those products are positioned in the market. My question is just, I'd love to hear how you guys think about navigating the positioning of those products and navigating your partnership relationships both up and downstream as you go to market with those products. Yeah. Good morning, George. This is Wendy. Thank you for the question. Interestingly, I think the two concepts actually overlap pretty nicely. Let me start with maybe Employer Direct. Of course, the thesis of which most of the employers that we're dialoguing with, well, all of them, they already have benefit offerings. They're looking at partnering with us as more of a complement to their insurance. And let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of the early focus is on GLP-1s, the majority of which these employers have dropped coverage. In that instance, the PBMs are actually looking at us as a very nice partner in this instance, because the employer couldn't really afford to do it through the funded channel. As such, the Employer Direct offering, when they're partnering with us, gives them access to our direct-to-consumer pricing in partnership with a potential additional buydown from the employer in a wellness type account, which is really good for all parties, not the least of which, of course, is the employee, who otherwise would have been on their own to figure this out. Companion, to be clear, is not an insured product, but you're not wrong that when you think about 200+ free generics, plus hundreds more at 10 or less, in addition to all of the adjunctive offerings, be it telehealth, vision, dental, so on and so forth, that is a fantastic complement to a broader offering and also an excellent way for an employer to complement their benefit offering to include perhaps employees that otherwise weren't going to qualify for benefit at all. We've had employers say, "Yeah, this makes a ton of sense for us to fold in as well." So far, I would say, there hasn't been explicit pushback from PBMs. Transparently, am I out soliciting their input as to what they think about it? No, not necessarily. At the end of the day, benefit coverage continues to get skinnier. This just really fits nicely with really the holes that a lot of insured consumers are already experiencing. Maybe more broadly, if I may, look, I will say the regulatory advocacy that we've been pressing upon in D.C. to both have really all cash pricing count towards out-of-pocket maximums, and also pressing upon the ability to use HSA, FSA dollars, those membership expenses to be able to be reimbursed through those particular vehicles. These are all things that have gained a great deal of interest. When you triangulate that with some of the larger PBM settlements, where they've largely already said that they will support cash out-of-pocket expenses counting towards deductibles, candidly, George, I think we're all racing towards the same solution here, and GoodRx is well-positioned to take advantage of it. I think we're generally thinking about it the same. Thank you. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Steven Valiquette with Mizuho Securities. Please go ahead. Yeah, great. Thanks. Good morning. I know that more of the company's overall growth may be tied more heavily to brand drugs these days, but it is worth noting, for the overall U.S. market that really calendar 2Q 2026 represented one of the strongest quarters ever for new first-time generic drug launches. We have seen some other companies in the pharma supply channel capture some immediate financial benefit from that. I guess my question is really, directionally, this should be quite positive for certain segments of your overall business as well. I'm wondering if you can just provide a little more color on your observations around this dynamic and whether the company could see maybe some greater leverage of this in the back half of 2026. Is this maybe more of an elongated benefit for the company, just based on how it flows? Thanks. Appreciate the question, good morning. I'll start. Justin may have additional financial commentary. Look, unequivocally from just a percentage of fill standpoint, you're spot on. Most of the fills in the U.S., 85%-90% are in fact generics, and it's one of the reasons our GoodRx Companion product is hyper-fixated on $0 generics. Because again, those typically are the first-line therapies that really any consumer pursues, particularly if they have cost-conscious limitations, which most of us do these days. Having said that other 10% are often the ones that hit the bottom line the hardest for consumers. As such, those programs and partnerships with pharma will continue to be immensely important, just knowing that those tend to be the ones that consumers have a far more difficult time getting. Usually, it's due to cost at the counter. By our estimates, over 1 billion brand scripts are abandoned in any given year, which is just a drain on the healthcare system as prescribers writing those therapies to then be unable to get your patient ultimately onto therapy. More broadly, I think your question pointing toward generic supports our GoodRx Companion strategy and offering. To be clear, my goodness, yes, the overwhelming number of prescriptions supported by GoodRx are generics, will continue to be generics, and our ability to drive the most competitive generic pricing possible will continue to be of the utmost importance to our strategy. We absolutely don't intend to abandon that. Justin, anything you'd add? Nope. I think that that's right, Wendy. Thank you. All right. Great. Thanks. Thank you. I'm showing no further questions at this time. Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect.