PRP vs GFC for hair loss: which one is right for you?

Two treatments from the same starting point, with different costs and different cases. When each one is the better choice.

Both are made from your own blood, both are injected into the scalp, and neither is better in every case. PRP is a spun concentrate of your platelets suspended in plasma. GFC is a further-processed preparation in which the platelets are activated first and the growth factors they release are collected. The right choice depends on your diagnosis, your blood results and the course you will realistically finish.

What each one actually is

PRP — platelet-rich plasma — starts with a blood draw, usually from the arm. The sample is spun in a centrifuge so that the platelets separate out and concentrate into a small volume of plasma. That concentrate is injected into the scalp, where the platelets release their growth factors over the following hours and days.

GFC — growth factor concentrate — starts identically, but adds a step. The platelets are activated in the tube so that they release their growth factors first, and it is the resulting concentrate, largely free of cells, that is injected. In principle you are delivering the signalling molecules directly rather than delivering the platelets and waiting for them to do it.

That is the whole difference, and it is worth being clear about what it is not. Neither is a drug. Neither adds anything from outside your body. Neither creates new follicles. Both aim to support follicles that are still present and still capable of producing hair, which is why the diagnosis in front of them matters more than the choice between them.

Where they genuinely differ

Preparation and time in the chair. GFC needs the extra activation and processing step, so the appointment usually runs longer. PRP is quicker and the protocol is more familiar to more clinics.

Evidence. This is where honesty is more useful than enthusiasm. PRP has the larger published record in pattern hair loss, accumulated over more years — though the studies are genuinely difficult to compare with one another, because spin speeds, platelet concentrations, injection depth and session intervals differ from paper to paper. GFC is newer. There is published work, but less of it, and less of it long-term. Less evidence is not the same as evidence of no effect, and it is not the same as proof either. Anyone telling you the newer option is simply better is going beyond what the literature supports.

Comfort. Both involve multiple injections into the scalp and both are uncomfortable rather than painful for most people. Some patients find the cell-free preparation a little less inflammatory afterwards; that is a common clinical impression rather than a settled fact.

Cost. The two are priced differently, and clinics price differently again. Ask for the cost of a full course rather than a single session, and ask what maintenance costs afterwards. A cheaper first session that needs more of them is not cheaper.

“The useful question is not which one is better. It is which one you will still be turning up for in month four — because neither works as a single session.”

Which tends to suit whom

PRP is often the sensible starting point where cost over a full course is the deciding factor, where you want the option with the longest track record, or where a clinic performs it frequently and has a settled protocol. Familiarity is worth something: a well-executed PRP course beats an unfamiliar procedure performed occasionally.

GFC is worth discussing where you want a cell-free preparation, where you have found PRP sessions particularly uncomfortable or have had noticeable inflammation afterwards, or where the extra processing suits your case in the assessing doctor’s judgement. Some people simply prefer the standardisation of a prepared concentrate.

For a great many patients, either would be a reasonable choice and the honest answer is that the deciding factors are practical — cost, schedule, and how well you tolerated whatever you have already tried. Neither replaces treating the cause. If iron, thyroid, vitamin D or a hormonal condition is contributing, correcting that is not an optional extra to be done later; it is the part that determines whether anything else has a chance of helping.

When neither is the answer

Both are deferred or avoided where there is active infection, inflammation or open skin on the scalp; where there is a bleeding or platelet disorder, a very low platelet count, or significant untreated anaemia; where you are taking an anticoagulant, until the prescribing doctor has reviewed it; in pregnancy and breastfeeding, because it has not been studied; and where there is active malignancy or an untreated blood condition.

They are also the wrong tool for the wrong diagnosis. Scarring alopecias destroy the follicle itself, and no autologous preparation restores a follicle that is gone. Patchy loss with smooth skin, scaling or scalp pain needs a diagnosis before it needs a syringe. Sudden diffuse shedding after a fever, an illness, surgery, a crash diet or childbirth is usually temporary and usually settles without injections at all.

And if you cannot commit to the course, say so at the consultation. Both are given as a series over months, followed by spaced maintenance. A partial course is money spent on an unfinished treatment.

Expect an assessment before a recommendation: history, an examination of the scalp, and blood tests where indicated. Any clinic that names your treatment before it knows why your hair is thinning has chosen for its own reasons, not yours.

Reviewed by the Kremlin Aesthetics clinical team. Last updated 18 August 2026.