Independent · Running since September 2026
Independent analysis of peptide purity, certificates of analysis and vendor documentation, written for people who would rather read the test result than the marketing.
We do not sell peptides. No stock, no dispensary, no clinic. We review documentation and publish what we find.
See every product we have priced →
Published
A purity claim is only as good as the document behind it, and a compound is only as good as the evidence behind it. These are the references we work from.
Catalogue
Both vendors, every listed price, with our evidence tier beside it. Set your region and the list drops the vendor that cannot post to you, then set what you are looking for and the list drops everything else. The category buttons are ordered by measured search demand in your own region, not by our preference.
Compound guides
Semaglutide, tirzepatide, retatrutide, GHK-Cu and BPC-157. Regulatory status, what the trials found, what happens when you come off them, and the myths, each capped by an evidence tier.
Evidence review
Semaglutide, tirzepatide and retatrutide judged on the trial record, including the 2026 Phase 3 results, what happens when you stop, and why research grade GLP-1 is not the same product as the approved drug.
Guide
What HPLC and mass spectrometry each prove, why 99% purity does not mean 99% peptide in the vial, and the checks that separate a real test result from a marketing document.
Vendor review
Four blends from a United States vendor. Two publish what is in the vial and two do not, and the two that stay quiet publish no component split at all. Includes what the brand's own evidence grading says about its own product.
Vendor review
Six of the eight publish a contents table on their own product page, which is not what a kit called a protocol usually turns out to mean. The vendor also states plainly that its products ship with no usage instructions at all. Every retail price on this site is stated twice, in two different amounts, and we report both.
What we cover
Rather than a thin page on every compound, we go deep on the questions that actually decide whether a purchase was a good idea.
How to read a certificate of analysis, what HPLC and mass spectrometry each prove, and which vendors publish batch matched results rather than brochures.
Where a compound stands with the FDA, EMA, MHRA, TGA and other national regulators, how far that differs between markets, and what customs does with intercepted consignments.
What the published research shows for each compound, including when the honest answer is that it was a rodent study, or a trial that failed its primary endpoint.
Who documents their supply chain, who tests independently, who publishes endotoxin results, and who simply asserts a purity figure and hopes nobody asks.
Our method
The tier sets a hard ceiling on what we are willing to say about a compound. It is the difference between reporting a finding and implying a benefit, and we apply it to every page on the site.
Approved medicineRegistered by a recognised regulator for a defined indication. We name the regulator, and we state the position in each major market separately.
Human trial dataControlled trials in people, published, but not approved for the use discussed. We report the population, the duration and the result, and stop there.
Weak human dataPilot studies, uncontrolled case series, or single network research with no independent replication. The weakness appears in the same sentence as the finding.
Preclinical onlyCell, rodent or veterinary evidence. The species goes in the sentence. No human benefit is implied, however popular the compound is.
How we work
We do not tell you what to take. For an approved medicine we reproduce the dosing schedule its regulator has published, because that is a matter of public record. For an unapproved compound we report only what the trials used, and we publish no schedules and no reconstitution guidance for anything. What you should take is a clinician’s decision and we are not your clinician.
Everything traces to a primary source. Regulator publications, trial registries, peer reviewed papers. We link out generously, including where it undercuts a popular claim.
Pages are signed and dated. Every article carries a named author and a last reviewed date, and we log corrections rather than quietly editing them away.
Commercial relationships are disclosed. Where we earn a commission we say so on the page, and a vendor cannot buy a better review. Our worst assessments will sit beside our affiliate links.
We count clicks, not people. When you follow a vendor link we record that a link was followed, which page it was on, and which product it was for. No cookie is set, no identifier is stored on your device, and we do not record your address or your browser. The catalogue keeps your region on your own device so the filter does not reset. That is the whole of it.
We publish the inconvenient answer. Where the registered, prescribed route is the better option, we say that, even though it earns us nothing.
Early access
When we publish a vendor’s COA analysis, subscribers see it before it goes live. Occasional, specific, no digests of things you already knew.
No spam. Unsubscribe in one click.