MariTide
vs CagriSema.
Compare MariTide and CagriSema by monthly versus weekly research, GIP antagonism versus amylin, Phase 2 and Phase 3 results, and FDA status.
Also searched as monthly MariTide vs weekly CagriSema · AMG 133 vs CagriSema
What is the difference?
MariTide and CagriSema are different investigational obesity programs with no head-to-head trial. MariTide is Amgen's peptide-antibody conjugate that activates GLP-1 receptors and antagonizes GIP receptors, with monthly dosing at the center of its efficacy program. CagriSema is Novo Nordisk's once-weekly combination of cagrilintide and semaglutide, engaging amylin and GLP-1 pathways. CagriSema has completed pivotal Phase 3 trials and is under FDA review. MariTide has Phase 2 efficacy evidence and an active Phase 3 program. 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.
MariTide
Investigational - not FDA approved
- Route
- Subcutaneous injection
- Registry
- 27 matched NCT records
- Sponsor
- Amgen
CagriSema
Submitted to FDA - not yet approved
- Route
- Once-weekly subcutaneous injection
- Registry
- 30 matched NCT records
- Sponsor
- Novo Nordisk
MariTide vs CagriSema: how direct is the evidence?
No participant in the cited sources was randomized between MariTide and CagriSema. 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.
MariTide
GLP-1 receptor agonist + GIP receptor antagonist
- Route
- Subcutaneous injection
- Stage
- Phase 3 program active
- 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 trialCagriSema
Amylin analogue + GLP-1 receptor agonist
- Route
- Once-weekly subcutaneous injection
- Stage
- Phase 3 / US regulatory review
- Status
- Submitted to FDA - not yet 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
- 6
- Results posted
- 2
- Recruiting site observations
- 1581
matched NCT records
- Recruiting
- 5
- Results posted
- 0
- Recruiting site observations
- 155
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.
MariTide
GLP-1 receptor agonist + GIP receptor antagonist
- Route
- Subcutaneous injection
- Stage
- Phase 3 program active
- Status
- Investigational - not FDA approved
- Featured trial anchors
- NCT05669599 · NCT06858878 · NCT07037433
CagriSema
Amylin analogue + GLP-1 receptor agonist
- Route
- Once-weekly subcutaneous injection
- Stage
- Phase 3 / US regulatory review
- Status
- Submitted to FDA - not yet approved
- Featured trial anchors
- NCT05567796 · NCT05669755 · NCT07011667
Compare the field, then read the limit.
These programs represent two different convenience and mechanism bets. MariTide is testing whether a long-acting monthly approach can reduce treatment frequency, while CagriSema combines two established peptide strategies in one weekly regimen. Comparing them is useful for route, mechanism, evidence maturity, regulatory status, and study design. It is not a basis for naming a stronger or safer medicine from unrelated trials.
| Field | MariTide | CagriSema | How to interpret it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mechanism | GLP-1 receptor agonism plus GIP receptor antagonism | Cagrilintide amylin activity plus semaglutide GLP-1 activity | The receptor strategies are different, and a mechanism description cannot determine comparative clinical benefit or safety. |
| Lead schedule | Monthly injection, with lower-frequency maintenance also studied | Once-weekly fixed-dose injection | MariTide's quarterly evidence concerns selected participants continuing maintenance, not a proven quarterly starting regimen. |
| Evidence anchor | Up to 19.9% at week 52 in Phase 2 under an efficacy estimand | 22.7% at week 68 in Phase 3 under the trial-product estimand | Different trial phases, durations, estimands, and treatment strategies prevent a valid percentage ranking. |
| Current milestone | MARITIME Phase 3 program active | FDA New Drug Application under review | CagriSema is further along in US regulatory review, while neither program has an approved label or commercial schedule. |
| Durability question | Continued lower-frequency maintenance is being studied | Long-term weight-maintenance Phase 3 study is active | Continued treatment is not evidence that weight remains off after stopping either investigational drug. |
Why the headline numbers do not name a winner.
MariTide reported up to 19.9% mean loss at week 52 under an efficacy estimand in its Phase 2 obesity cohort, while the treatment-policy range was 12.3% to 16.2%. CagriSema reported 22.7% at week 68 under the REDEFINE 1 trial-product estimand and 20.4% under the treatment-policy estimand. The studies differed in phase, duration, randomization, escalation, population, comparator response, and missing-data handling. Placing the values side by side does not create a direct efficacy comparison.
Keep the comparison honest.
- 01
Keep MariTide's monthly efficacy evidence separate from exploratory quarterly maintenance in selected participants who continued treatment.
- 02
Attach every result to trial phase, duration, estimand, population, escalation plan, and placebo response before placing values side by side.
- 03
Keep CagriSema's submitted application separate from approval and reject any commercial offer that borrows either development name as proof of identity.
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 →