Two Eli Lilly incretin compounds, one approved and one investigational. On the Research Quality Score they sit 14 points apart, but that entire gap comes from three of the seven dimensions - and it reflects how mature the research is, not how well either compound works.
These two are closer than the 14-point gap suggests. They tie on study design, journal quality, funding independence, and researcher pedigree. The difference is concentrated in replication (+8 to tirzepatide) and sample size (+4), with a smaller edge in population diversity. That pattern has one cause: tirzepatide's evidence base is further along. It has a completed, published, independently scrutinized Phase 3 program and FDA approval as Mounjaro and Zepbound. Retatrutide's Phase 3 TRIUMPH program is still reading out, and its results have not yet been independently replicated.
The point that matters most, and the one a score alone hides: retatrutide's lower number does not mean it works less well. Its Phase 3 TRIUMPH-1 readout showed roughly 28 to 30 percent mean body weight reduction, the largest reported in a Phase 3 obesity trial to date, exceeding tirzepatide's own SURMOUNT-1 result. The RQS grades how mature and robust the research is, not how large the effect is. Reading "91 versus 77" as "tirzepatide is the better compound" is misreading what the score measures.
Both share the same ceiling. Each scores 3 out of 10 on funding independence because every trial for both compounds is Lilly-sponsored, with no independently funded replication. That is a shared limitation of the incretin field right now, not a mark against either one specifically.
So the actual decision is not "which scored higher." It is a choice between an approved compound with a mature, dispensable-today evidence base and an investigational compound with a larger reported effect but a younger research record that is not yet complete. That tradeoff belongs in a conversation with a clinician, not a takeaway from a number.