Zenagamtide
vs Retatrutide.
Compare amycretin, now zenagamtide, with retatrutide by oral and injectable routes, mechanism, trial stage, results, and current approval status.
Also searched as Zenagamtide vs Retatrutide · Amycretin pill vs Retatrutide · NNC0487-0111 vs LY3437943
Zenagamtide vs Retatrutide: What is the difference?
Amycretin, now called zenagamtide, and retatrutide are separate investigational programs with no head-to-head trial. Zenagamtide activates GLP-1 and amylin receptors and is being developed as both a once-daily tablet and a once-weekly injection. Retatrutide is a once-weekly GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon triple agonist. Retatrutide has Phase 3 obesity topline results, while zenagamtide evidence spans earlier oral studies, Phase 2 oral and injectable data, and newer late-stage development records. Neither is FDA approved.
See the useful differences first.
Start with identity, current US status, trial coverage, and the evidence relationship. Then carry the exact pair into a country-aware workspace without losing either record.
Zenagamtide
Investigational - not FDA approved
- Route
- Once-daily oral or once-weekly subcutaneous
- Registry
- 24 matched NCT records
- Sponsor
- Novo Nordisk
Retatrutide
Investigational - not FDA approved
- Route
- Once-weekly subcutaneous injection
- Registry
- 34 matched NCT records
- Sponsor
- Eli Lilly and Company
Zenagamtide vs Retatrutide: how direct is the evidence?
No participant in the cited sources was randomized between Zenagamtide and Retatrutide. Identity, mechanism, route, trial design, and regulatory status can be compared. Subtracting percentages from separate studies would create a treatment effect the evidence did not test.
Zenagamtide
GLP-1 + amylin receptor agonist
- Route
- Once-daily oral or once-weekly subcutaneous
- Stage
- Phase 3 development underway
- Status
- Investigational - not FDA approved
Two evidence records, no shared randomization.
Treat percentages as separate source records. Do not subtract them, divide them into weekly rates, or use the larger value to name a winner.
No randomized head-to-head trialRetatrutide
GIP + GLP-1 + glucagon receptor agonist
- Route
- Once-weekly subcutaneous injection
- Stage
- Phase 3 program reporting results
- Status
- Investigational - not FDA approved
The current exact-intervention dataset contains 268 unique NCT records across 13 tracked investigational programs. Counts describe registry coverage, not comparative evidence strength.
matched NCT records
- Recruiting
- 10
- Results posted
- 0
- Recruiting site observations
- 935
matched NCT records
- Recruiting
- 2
- Results posted
- 2
- Recruiting site observations
- 450
Compare the named molecules, active components, sponsors, and receptor strategies.
Compare the studied route, frequency, development phase, and exact program record.
Compare exact approvals, applications, and investigational status in the jurisdiction being checked.
Treat percentages as separate source records. Do not subtract them, divide them into weekly rates, or use the larger value to name a winner.
Use only adverse-event evidence reported for the cited protocol. Separate studies cannot establish which program is safer.
No group result, receptor count, route, approval milestone, or chart position predicts the best choice for one person.
Check both programs in the same market.
Approval, trial activity, product registration, pharmacy rules, and seller authority are country specific. Open both records before treating a status from one market as valid in another.
Answer the question without inventing a winner.
Each answer keeps route, mechanism, development stage, and trial result attached to the evidence that produced the fact.
Is Amycretin better than Retatrutide?
No direct trial establishes Amycretin, now called Zenagamtide, as better than Retatrutide. Zenagamtide offers an oral research path as well as an injectable program, while Retatrutide has a more mature Phase 3 obesity evidence record. The 13.1% oral result came from 16 active participants over 12 weeks and cannot be ranked against an 80-week Phase 3 Retatrutide result.
Are Amycretin and Zenagamtide the same drug?
Yes. Zenagamtide is the current name for the Novo Nordisk program formerly called Amycretin and identified in earlier records as NNC0487-0111. Older papers and references still use the former name, while newer sponsor and trial records use Zenagamtide. The oral and injectable formulations belong to the same development program but remain distinct clinical formulations.
Zenagamtide
GLP-1 + amylin receptor agonist
- Route
- Once-daily oral or once-weekly subcutaneous
- Stage
- Phase 3 development underway
- Status
- Investigational - not FDA approved
- Featured trial anchors
- NCT06049329 · NCT07503210 · NCT07668414
Retatrutide
GIP + GLP-1 + glucagon receptor agonist
- Route
- Once-weekly subcutaneous injection
- Stage
- Phase 3 program reporting results
- Status
- Investigational - not FDA approved
- Featured trial anchors
- NCT05929066 · NCT05931367 · NCT05882045
Compare the field, then read the limit.
Interest in this pair is driven by the possibility of a high-efficacy oral option and by large retatrutide Phase 3 headlines. The useful comparison is route, molecule design, trial population, and maturity of evidence. Calling the small 12-week amycretin cohort faster or stronger than a separate retatrutide trial would ignore sample size, duration, dose escalation, and population differences.
| Field | Zenagamtide | Retatrutide | How to interpret it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current name | Zenagamtide, formerly amycretin | Retatrutide, also LY3437943 | Searching both current and former development names is necessary to follow the full record. |
| Route studied | Once-daily oral and once-weekly subcutaneous formulations | Once-weekly subcutaneous injection | The oral route is a real differentiator, but neither route has an approved commercial label for these drugs. |
| Mechanism | GLP-1 and amylin receptor agonist | GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptor agonist | Both are multi-pathway programs, but their receptor combinations are not interchangeable. |
| Evidence anchor | Up to 14.5% at 36 weeks in a Phase 2 subcutaneous group with type 2 diabetes | 28.3% at 80 weeks in Phase 3 TRIUMPH-1 without diabetes | Different populations and trial designs make the two numbers unsuitable for a superiority claim. |
Why the headline numbers do not name a winner.
The often-repeated 13.1% oral amycretin result came from a small exploratory Phase 1 cohort over 12 weeks. Later Phase 2 results were reported in people with type 2 diabetes and included oral and subcutaneous groups. Retatrutide's 28.3% TRIUMPH-1 result came from an 80-week Phase 3 obesity trial in adults without diabetes. These are different clinical questions, not a race measured on one track.
Keep the comparison honest.
- 01
Treat amycretin and zenagamtide as the same development program, while keeping its oral and injectable formulations distinct.
- 02
Do not compare the 12-week Phase 1 oral signal directly with an 80-week Phase 3 retatrutide estimate.
- 03
Use sponsor and registry records for development status, not online availability claims attached to investigational names.
A country-specific approval, clinical trial, or matching name does not authenticate an online product or establish access elsewhere. This page contains no treatment recommendation, buying route, personal-use protocol, or affiliate link.
Open the safety and status guide →