About GlucoseIntel

Our Mission

GlucoseIntel exists to be the most trusted, most comprehensive, and most data-driven continuous glucose monitor resource on the internet. The CGM market has grown from a niche medical device category to a mainstream health technology used by over 4.5 million Americans — but the information landscape has not kept pace. Manufacturer marketing emphasizes features over trade-offs. Insurance navigation remains confusing. And the emergence of over-the-counter CGMs has created a new category of consumers who need guidance that is neither oversimplified wellness content nor clinical literature written for endocrinologists.

GlucoseIntel fills this gap with structured, verifiable data. Every product page includes the same standardized metrics — MARD accuracy, sensor wear time, warmup period, pricing with and without insurance, FDA clearance status, and insulin pump compatibility — so readers can make true apples-to-apples comparisons. Every claim is supported by a primary source: an FDA clearance document, a published clinical trial, or manufacturer-confirmed specifications. We do not rely on secondhand aggregation or anonymous user reviews.

What We Cover

GlucoseIntel maintains the most comprehensive CGM comparison database available to consumers. Our coverage spans the entire glucose monitoring ecosystem.

How We Review

Every CGM product review on GlucoseIntel follows a standardized methodology designed for transparency and reproducibility. Our process involves 4 steps.

1. Specification verification. We source technical specifications (MARD, wear time, warmup period, sensor type) from FDA 510(k) clearance documents and manufacturer product labeling — not from marketing materials or press releases.
2. Clinical evidence review. We identify the pivotal clinical trials supporting each device, summarize the study design and key outcomes, and link to the published paper so readers can verify our interpretation.
3. Pricing analysis. We verify pricing across multiple channels — manufacturer websites, pharmacy databases, insurance formulary databases, and Medicare fee schedules — and present ranges rather than single numbers to reflect real-world variability.
4. Structured comparison. Every device is evaluated against the same metrics using the same criteria, presented in comparison tables that enable objective side-by-side analysis. Our rating methodology weights accuracy (30%), features (25%), value (25%), and user experience (20%).

Editorial Independence

GlucoseIntel editorial content is fully independent of advertising and affiliate relationships. Our reviews and rankings are determined by published specifications, clinical data, and our standardized evaluation methodology — not by commission rates, sponsorship agreements, or manufacturer relationships. When we link to a product or service, we may earn an affiliate commission at no additional cost to the reader. We disclose this relationship transparently.

We do not accept payment for product placement, favorable reviews, or editorial coverage. Manufacturers cannot preview or approve our content before publication. Our editorial team makes all content decisions independently. If a product ranks poorly on our metrics, we report that accurately regardless of its affiliate commission structure.

Editorial Team

Every article on GlucoseIntel is written by subject-matter specialists and reviewed by credentialed professionals before publication. Our editorial process ensures clinical accuracy, current pricing data, and adherence to evidence-based standards.