NAD+ became the cheaper Meta acquisition in August. It is still the worse customer — but not for the reason it first appears. NAD+ subscribers retain and cancel better than Longevity's. What they do not do is spend: 29% less on the first order and 27% less on every subscription cycle after it, which compounds into 34% less revenue in 90 days. At like-for-like acquisition cost a NAD+ first-purchaser returns 0.54× its CAC in gross profit over a quarter, against Longevity's 0.85×. Neither pays back inside 90 days.
90-day gross profit divided by the Meta cost per purchase actually paid to acquire that cohort. June 2026 — the only month where both products were live and fully matured.
Each metric on its most defensible window. Bars are scaled within their own row.
Move the two levers you control — Meta cost per purchase, and first-order AOV from the buy box. Gross profit scales at each product's own realised margin.
Longevity sits at $206.88 today, NAD+ at $181.35. The stated Meta goal is $150.
Buy More Save More is subscriptions-only, so read this as extra first-order revenue at the product's own margin — 71.2% Longevity, 74.7% NAD+.
Longevity is deteriorating on cost. NAD+ is deteriorating on value. They crossed in August.
Longevity up 72% this year off a low base; NAD+ up 11% off a high one.
Longevity holds around $108. NAD+ has never reached the $100 floor that 0.80 aMER needs.
Hollow points are cohorts without a full 90 days yet — those figures can only rise.
Skio. Roughly half of both cohorts start a subscription on the first order, so this is where most of the LTV difference is actually decided.
Measured raw, NAD+ looks like it retains far worse — 34.3% reach cycle 2 against Longevity's 49.4%. That is a maturity artifact: the NAD+ book is back-weighted to August and much of it has not reached a second bill date. Matched properly — subscriptions started in the same window, 15 June to 15 July, average age 78 days against 74 — the direction reverses. But the two pieces of evidence do not carry equal weight. The cancellation gap is solid: 12.7% against 26.4% by day 60, p < 0.001. The order-survival gap is suggestive only — cycle 2 at p ≈ 0.06, cycle 3 at p ≈ 0.20. Say “NAD+ subscribers cancel at half the rate,” not “NAD+ subscribers place more orders.”
The welcome-offer discount rolls off at cycle 2, which lifts both. The gap between them does not close — it holds near $28 a cycle.
Every subscription started early June to 8 August, by what happened at the second bill. The two measures disagree in size for a reason: Longevity loses people who click cancel, NAD+ loses more who simply stop billing without ever cancelling.
Twice the cancellation advantage, a fraction of the order advantage. NAD+'s silent-churn band is the wider of the two — 30.1% against 23.1% — so a chunk of its low cancel rate is churn that has not been recorded rather than churn that did not happen. Dunning and payment recovery are a bigger untapped lever on the NAD+ book than on Longevity's. Net of all of it: over three cycles a Longevity subscriber is worth $183.44 and a NAD+ subscriber $144.52. Better retention claws back about a fifth of the price gap, and no more.
Share of each entry cohort that has since bought a product other than the one they came in on. June–August 2026 first orders, measured to 14 September. Samples, inserts and packaging components excluded.
Seventy-one rows. Filter by KPI group, or hide the cohorts that have not had time to mature.
| KPI | Period | Longevity | NAD+ | NAD+ vs L |
|---|
Full-price NAD+ first orders average $72.34; discounted ones average $79.76. Discounting is not what drags NAD+ AOV down — the $79 price point is. No promo change fixes a $79 hero SKU against a $100 new-user AOV floor.
The buy box is the only lever that moves it, and it matters more for NAD+ than for anything else in the portfolio.
Its AOV and margin are intact. Its CPP went up 72% this year. Roughly a third of the August jump is one campaign — [NM] - TOF Longevity 7/1/1, $48,368 at a $223.92 CPP, running for a week after it had been paused.
Strip it out and the August–September crossover narrows to $191.91 against $181.35.
NAD+ carries the better realised gross margin — 74.7% against Longevity's 71.2%. But it books fewer orders in 90 days, 1.36 against 1.57, on a smaller first order.
The margin advantage is worth about $3 per customer. The AOV gap costs about $31.
Age-matched, NAD+ subscribers cancel at half Longevity's rate — 12.7% by day 60 against 26.4%, p < 0.001 — and bill 8.8% more cycles. They are the stickier cohort. Hold the order-count half of that claim loosely, though: at n=126 it is only p ≈ 0.06.
The gap is the cheque. Every billed cycle is worth about $28 less — $83.07 against $113.07 at cycle 2 — and that spread is flat across cycles 1, 2 and 3. Over three cycles, retention claws back a fifth of it. Basket size has to do the rest.
Cross-sell propensity is almost identical once someone comes back — 25.3% of Longevity repeaters and 22.1% of NAD+ repeaters expand the basket. The gap in portfolio expansion is a repeat-rate problem, not a merchandising one.
But the direction is lopsided: 50 Longevity buyers went on to buy NAD+, while only 12 NAD+ buyers went on to buy Longevity. Longevity is the door into the portfolio; NAD+ is mostly a room people stay in.
NAD+'s 3-month LTV rests on 50 customers. The 60-day read (n=126) is sturdier and says the same thing — $106.00 against $159.25.
Meta CPP is classified from campaign names, so ASC+ - Longevity - Smarter NAD counts as Longevity; about $185K of YTD spend sitting in Overflow and Strategic Testing is in neither column.
The “$56 promoted NAD+ AOV” in circulation does not reproduce here — discounted NAD+ first orders are $79.76. Worth reconciling before it reaches the leadership deck.
Re-run this on 5 October. Skio bills on a 30-day cadence, so the August NAD+ cohort's cycle 2 completes 30 September; allowing for dunning, the sample goes from 81 subscribers to roughly 230 by 5 October. A second pass on 2 November closes cycle 3 for August and cycle 2 for September, and matures 90-day LTV for both.