London injectables published price observations by district

How this dataset was made, and how to read it

On 23 October 2026 we looked for aesthetic clinics in six London districts that publish their own prices for two treatment families: botulinum toxin anti-wrinkle injections, and hyaluronic acid dermal fillers. The districts are Chiswick, Kensington, Marylebone, Shoreditch, Wimbledon and the City of London. Candidates were found by searching for each district with each treatment, and every figure below was then read on the clinic's own public page, which is linked beside it. Nothing here was taken from a directory, a booking platform, a comparison site, an advertisement or a search result snippet.

Nothing is averaged, rounded, converted or ranked. There is no district league table in this record, and that is deliberate. A one area appointment, a four area appointment, a fractional syringe, a whole millilitre, a lead clinician tier, a course of three, a monthly membership, a struck through sale price and a minimum figure are nine different commercial propositions, and a mean across them would describe none of them. Each row therefore keeps the treatment as the page words it, the figure as the page prints it, and the scope the page attaches to it.

Where a clinic publishes two different figures for the same thing on two of its own pages, both appear and neither is marked correct. Where a clinic publishes prices but no address, it is excluded from every district and named in the findings section instead, because a price with no place attached is not a local price. Where a clinic publishes no prices at all, it is recorded as such rather than quietly dropped, because a sample of visible prices is not a census of local provision.

This is a point in time record. Clinic pages change, offers end and lists are revised, so a figure here describes what a page displayed on 23 October 2026 and nothing more. It is not a quotation, a recommendation or a clinical opinion, and no amount here is what any individual will be charged.

Chiswick

Kensington

Marylebone

Shoreditch

Wimbledon

The City of London

What is not published, and why that is a finding

A cost record is only honest if it says what it could not find. These clinics were readable and publish no figure at all for either treatment family: Clinic Ten, Define Clinic, Kensington International Clinic, Dr Zeena Clinic, Marco Aesthetics, Fine Skin London, Divine Skin Science, and City Dermatology Clinic, whose own article on cost gives general market averages rather than its own charges. Dentist Wimbledon answers every slot with prices on request or bespoke. Ridgway Dental publishes only a general statement about what the market typically charges per unit. Bianca Estelle Aesthetics in Marylebone keeps its price list behind a download request form. Skin Medico and Private London Clinic do not permit automated reading of their pages at all.

Three clinics publish prices and no address or postcode, so their figures cannot be attached to any district: Harley Street Treatments, Diyah Aesthetics and Face Clinic London. They are left out of the tables rather than placed in a district by assumption. Several others publish prices against an address outside the six districts, Isleworth, Barnes, Mayfair, Soho and West Hampstead among them, and are likewise left out.

Put together, those two groups are the real finding of the pass. Among clinics that are easy to find for these searches in these districts, a substantial share either publish nothing, publish a figure with no place, or publish only after a form. A reader comparing what things cost in London is therefore not comparing a market. They are comparing the part of a market that chose to publish.

Scope is the whole problem

Read down any district table above and the same thing happens: the figures stop being comparable the moment you look at what they include. In Kensington one clinic publishes one area at £250 with another practitioner and £395 with its lead doctor, which is a single clinic with a 58 per cent internal spread before any other clinic is considered. In Wimbledon one clinic publishes one area at £250 and states that the figure includes a 45 minute consultation and a two week review, while another in the same district publishes one area at £200 and charges a separate £50 consultation that is refunded only if you proceed. Those two numbers look 20 per cent apart and are not.

Two chains in this set publish one London list across two of these districts, so their Shoreditch and City figures are identical by construction rather than by local market. One clinic in the City publishes a declining price per millilitre as volume rises, from £400 per ml at two millilitres down to £312 per ml at six, which means its headline filler figure tells you almost nothing without the volume. Two clinics contradict themselves on their own sites, one between its district page and its price list, one between its price table and its own FAQ. One publishes a 30 per cent off banner without saying whether the prices beneath it already carry the discount.

None of that is sloppiness on the clinics' part, and none of it is hidden. It is simply what a published price is: a figure attached to conditions. The practical conclusion for anyone comparing is narrow and useful. Compare a stated area count only with the same stated area count. Compare a volume only with the same volume. Keep each practitioner tier separate. Treat a minimum figure as a floor and not a price. Treat a sale figure as a sale. And read what the figure includes before reading the figure, because consultation, review and top-up move the real number more than the district does.