FAI versus Curex, from Curex
We wrote this one, so we start with what the other side does better — that is the only way a comparison from a competitor deserves your attention.
Start with FAI’s real advantages: in-person supervision that allows aggressive, personalised dosing; frequent supervised food challenges; a program families credit with full food freedom; and speed no responsible at-home program can match. Curex’s advantages are different in kind: the only fully at-home program — testing via local labs or self-collection, doctors by telemedicine, treatment shipped by the Allergychoices pharmacy; gentler sublingual dosing with far fewer side effects; a much higher graduation rate because patients don’t drop out; and typically $10,000+ saved over a course, with financing from $79/month on some plans. The choice is speed versus sustainability — and candidacy is a clinical call either way: anaphylaxis history or severe asthma routes to in-person care.
Medically reviewed by Dr. Chet Tharpe, M.D. · Last reviewed September 2026
The trade
Speed versus sustainability, honestly drawn
Stated first, because we are the competitor.
- Aggressive supervised dosingDirect in-person supervision permits pace no at-home program should attempt.
- Supervised food challengesFrequent, on-site, built into the program.
- Documented food-freedom graduationsFamilies publicly credit the program with unrestricted eating after 2–3 years.
- One clinic, total focusA single-protocol institution with years of specialised experience at scale.
The at-home trade.
- No geography at allThe only fully at-home program: local-lab or self-collection testing, telemedicine visits, pharmacy-shipped treatment.
- Gentler by designSmall sublingual doses, far fewer side effects, none of the GI burden of aggressive oral protocols.
- Higher graduation ratePatients don’t drop out from side effects — and a completed gentle course beats an abandoned aggressive one.
- A bill families can carryMonthly plans, financing from $79/month on some; typically $10,000+ saved over a course.
The rule
Neither faster nor gentler is better in general
The honest trade is speed versus gentleness. Under direct supervision, clinicians can treat more aggressively — in-clinic programs normally use OIT and accelerated protocols, sometimes adding a biologic such as Xolair so the patient can safely tolerate a significant dose of allergen. The biologic protects the patient during treatment; it is the immunotherapy that modifies the disease. At-home SLIT is gentler, safer, more convenient, and more affordable. Faster is not better for every patient; neither is gentler.
Candidacy is a clinical decision, not a marketing one: a history of anaphylaxis or severe, poorly controlled asthma belongs with in-person assessment before starting anything — theirs or ours. Food challenges happen in clinic on every protocol, including for our patients.
Full landscape context: the treatment options page and the three-provider comparison.
❓Frequently Asked Questions
When speed matters most and the logistics work: a family within reach of Long Beach or the new New Jersey clinic, able to sustain visits every 8–12 weeks for years, funding a program that can exceed $10,000 annually, and wanting the most aggressive supervised desensitisation available. In-person supervision lets clinicians push harder than any at-home program responsibly can — that is a genuine, category-level advantage.
When sustainability decides: no clinic within reach, a schedule that cannot absorb years of travel and rest-window rules, a child or adult who does better with a gentler protocol, or a budget where five figures a year simply is not real. A gentler program a family completes beats an aggressive one it abandons in year two — and time burden is the top documented reason families decline clinic immunotherapy they were offered.
No — and clinic programs are not overkill either; the framing war in both directions is marketing, not medicine. Food SLIT is allergy immunotherapy: the same disease-modifying mechanism, delivered in much smaller precise doses under the tongue, working through the sublingual mucosa (swallowed, the same dose would do nothing). Gentler and generally somewhat slower, with fewer side effects — which is exactly why more patients stay on it to graduation. Different tools, both real.
Sequencing exists in practice: some families begin with gentler sublingual treatment (including during a clinic waitlist) and later step into an aggressive clinic program, or the reverse after a clinic program proves unsustainable. It is a conversation for a clinician who sees your case, not something to assemble from two providers’ marketing — ours included.
FAI publishes $979–$1,079 a month over 2.5–4 years — roughly $29,000–$47,000 in subscription alone, plus labs, materials, travel, and a reported post-remission fee; in-person programs can exceed $10,000 a year. Curex runs on monthly plans with financing from $79/month on some plans; patients can generally save more than $10,000 over a course of treatment. Ask both — including us — for the all-in figure in writing.
If you experience sudden difficulty breathing, throat swelling, or other signs of anaphylaxis, call 911. A prescribed epinephrine auto-injector is the first-line treatment — not antihistamines.
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider with questions about a medical condition. Content reviewed by board-certified allergists at Curex.
Keep reading
- Is Curex legit?The company, the evidence, and the concerns worth knowing — including full context on the 2025 FDA warning letter.Read
- How Curex worksThe treatment process end to end, from at-home testing to daily drops.Read
- Curex reviewsWhat patients actually report — both clusters, including the complaints.Read
- Is Curex worth the money?Plan pricing against allergy-shot costs, and who it is not worth it for.Read
- Evidence & guidelinesWhat the FDA approved, what the AAAAI/ACAAI practice parameter does and does not endorse, and what has been added since.Read
- Providers comparedCurex, Wyndly and Nectar on published prices, guarantees and evidence — including where a competitor is ahead.Read