Vendor directory
Twenty-one research-compound suppliers discussed on this site, with the community rating derived from 22k contributed reviews. Legal names, cities and establishment years are business facts and are reproduced as such. Ratings are this community's, and they will not match another community's. Each profile links the supplier's own storefront, marked nofollow and sponsored, so you can check a claim against the seller's own copy — we take nothing from any of them and a link is not a recommendation.
The wider market
The twenty-one above are the suppliers asked about often enough here, with enough independently submitted results behind them, to justify a profile. The 188 below are the rest of the market as it appears in questions on this site. Some have too few reports to say anything about. Some have a band that sits below the profiled set. Some have results that span two, three or four bands from the same catalogue, which is the least comfortable finding on this page: it means the supplier and the lot are not the same question. Each row gets a band, a report count and an honest note — no profile page, no score of ours, and no outbound link. That absence is the finding, and it is the reason the twenty above read as earned rather than asserted.
| Supplier | Band | Mentions | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trusted Peptide | B | 2 | Sits at B. A clean record is easy to produce when the record is short. The file holds two independently submitted results and no second lot to compare against. |
| Risynth Bio | B | 8 | B band, capped there alongside every other unprofiled name however good the numbers look. Coverage: eight reports. A profile page needs an order of magnitude more. No submission carries a chain of custody, so every figure in the row is a buyer's word plus a laboratory's. The letter is a summary of submissions and the submissions are listed nowhere else, which is a limitation worth knowing about. |
| NUPEPS Peptides | B | 4 | Banded B, with the caveat that B is where this table begins and not where it rewards. The file has four results in it — more than most names on this table, and less than any name above it. The submissions cover purity far better than they cover sterility, endotoxin or identity, and the gaps are not neutral. |
| Hunan GoodPeptides Biotech Co | B | 2 | Held at B. Nothing on file contradicts anything else on file; there is simply not much of it. Depth: two. Anything said beyond restating that would be extrapolation. No submission has been excluded for being inconvenient, including the ones that sit badly with the rest. |
| Bulk Peptide Wholesale | B | 20 | Banded B, with the caveat that B is where this table begins and not where it rewards. The record is 20 reports deep, which rules out thin evidence as the explanation for anything odd in it. Dates were recorded where buyers supplied them and are missing where they did not, so the time series is incomplete. The bar for a profile is evidence across lots, and it is the same bar for every name on this page. |
| Paradigm Peptide | B | 16 | B. The letter describes the submissions rather than the supplier, and the two converge only at depth. Depth: 16 reports, spread over a period rather than clustered in one. The sixteen reports arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. Vendor-supplied results are not accepted for this table, which is part of why the counts run as low as they do. |
| Orbitrex Peptides | B | 17 | Held at B. Nothing on file contradicts anything else on file; there is simply not much of it. Depth of 17 reports — long enough to be interesting, short enough to be wrong. No submission carries a chain of custody, so every figure in the row is a buyer's word plus a laboratory's. Corrections are welcome and are applied to the record rather than negotiated. |
| Aavant Research | B | 13 | Held at B because nothing in the file argues for moving it in either direction. A file of 13 reports — enough to see a shape, short of enough to justify a page. No submission here has arrived with a lot number that traces back to a synthesis date. |
| PeptiAtlas | B | 4 | B. The letter describes the submissions rather than the supplier, and the two converge only at depth. Depth is four. Enough that the entry earns a row; not enough that the row earns a letter with confidence. Nothing in the file establishes who manufactured the material, only who sold it. |
| The Naughty Needle | B | 2 | Banded B on results that are uniform, uniformity being the cheapest property a small sample can have. Coverage is two reports — below the threshold at which this table will generalise. At this count a single careless buyer and a single careless lot are indistinguishable. |
| Lux Synth Aminos | B | 2 | Sits at B. A clean record is easy to produce when the record is short. Two results. That is a data point, and a data point is not a distribution. At two reports the row is mostly a description of what is missing. Where the record is silent, this row is silent, which is the only editorial rule the table has. |
| Huaian Hanyou Peptide | B | 7 | B, and the reason it stops at B is coverage rather than anything in the results. Seven reports, which puts sampling error above anything the results themselves could demonstrate. Nobody here has held a vial from this supplier; the entry is assembled entirely from what was sent in. |
| Lisa Biopeptide | B | 11 | B — the results are fine, and whether they generalise is a question the record does not touch. A count of 11 is the point at which dispersion becomes measurable and depth stops being the interesting variable. Documentation arriving with these submissions carries no method section, so the numbers cannot be compared with anything. |
| Lipeptides | B | 7 | Banded B on results that are uniform, uniformity being the cheapest property a small sample can have. Seven independently submitted results — respectable for an unprofiled name, thin in absolute terms. These are buyers' results on material buyers bought, which is the only kind this table collects. No figure of ours appears against this name, and none will until the record supports one. |
| NextGen Health | B | 3 | Placed at B and held there: an orderly shallow record is a different object from a good deep one. Coverage is three reports — below the threshold at which this table will generalise. At this count a single careless buyer and a single careless lot are indistinguishable. |
| OmegAmino | B | 4 | Banded B. The ceiling here is set by how much has been submitted, not by what it said. Four reports, which puts sampling error above anything the results themselves could demonstrate. |
| Xianhong Tong XHT Peptides | B | 5 | B — the results are fine, and whether they generalise is a question the record does not touch. Only five reports, so treat every pattern visible in them as a hypothesis. Nothing in the file distinguishes a manufacturer from a reseller, and this row asserts neither. No profile page, no score of our own and no outbound link: those are earned on the profiled table, and this row has not earned them. |
| Diju Peptides Wellness and Co | B | 4 | Placed at B and held there: an orderly shallow record is a different object from a good deep one. Four submissions: the range where a record starts to look like something and is most likely to mislead. No purity figure among the four carries a stated reporting threshold, which is a real gap rather than a pedantic one. None of this is a comparison against the twenty profiled above; the evidence bases are not comparable. |
| Zhang TY | B | 4 | Held at B because nothing in the file argues for moving it in either direction. Only four reports, so treat every pattern visible in them as a hypothesis. A second lot would be worth more here than ten further reports on the first. Dates were recorded where buyers supplied them and are missing where they did not, so the time series is incomplete. If the report count doubles and the reading holds, this row will still be a row — depth alone does not earn a page. |
| SubQ Society | B | 3 | Banded B — orderly as far as it goes, and it does not go far. Three results. That is a data point, and a data point is not a distribution. At three reports the row is mostly a description of what is missing. |
| Bfflink | B | 13 | Banded B. The ceiling here is set by how much has been submitted, not by what it said. That is 13 independently submitted results, none of them commissioned by us or by the supplier. |
| Laicuinuo LCN | B | 7 | Banded B — orderly as far as it goes, and it does not go far. Coverage: seven reports. A profile page needs an order of magnitude more. Where two results on this row disagree, both stand; reconciling them would mean choosing, and there is no basis for choosing. The seven reports arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. Vendor-supplied results are not accepted for this table, which is part of why the counts run as low as they do. |
| Cellupep | B | 7 | B, which on this table means the results agree and the sample does not yet justify more. The record runs to seven submissions and stops. Nothing here has been verified by us. The results were submitted, not commissioned. The absence of a caution here is not the presence of an endorsement. |
| Shanghai Leader Peptide Biotechnology | B | 8 | B, which on this table means the results agree and the sample does not yet justify more. Depth of eight: enough to see a tendency, nowhere near enough to trust one. The row will read very differently at thirty submissions, and there is no way to shortcut to that. |
| Peptronix Bio PTB | B | 13 | B, and the reason it stops at B is coverage rather than anything in the results. Coverage of 13 submissions: a shape is visible and it is not yet a stable one. Where two results on this row disagree, both stand; reconciling them would mean choosing, and there is no basis for choosing. Nobody submitting to this table was asked to, which is the record's main virtue and its main gap at once. Testing your own vial usually costs less than the vial, and it answers a question this row cannot. |
| Yongkang Nuoao Trading Co | B | 9 | Assigned B. Read it as nothing having gone wrong yet rather than as an endorsement. Nine reports, which puts sampling error above anything the results themselves could demonstrate. No submission here has arrived with a lot number that traces back to a synthesis date. If a second trading name appears under the same ownership, the row will be split rather than merged. |
| Eros Peptides | B | 3 | Assigned B. Read it as nothing having gone wrong yet rather than as an endorsement. Depth of three: enough to confirm the name is real, not enough to say anything about it. Consistency between unrelated buyers is worth more than consistency within one buyer's order, and the record does not always let the two be told apart. |
| Champion Peptide | B | 6 | B band, capped there alongside every other unprofiled name however good the numbers look. Six results, with no way to know how many distinct lots are behind them. Method varies between the laboratories these results came from, and that variation is inside the numbers rather than beside them. Corrections are welcome and are applied to the record rather than negotiated. |
| Bio Pepz | B | 4 | B band. Every submission lands in the same place, which is either consistency or coincidence, and four reports cannot tell you which. At four reports the picture is suggestive rather than settled, and it is published as suggestive. The results agree with each other, which they would also do if they all came from one lot. |
| Shandong Nuoweiou Medical Technology Co | B | 5 | B band. Consistency across five reports is what one lot looks like, and one lot may be what this is. Depth of five: enough to see a tendency, nowhere near enough to trust one. What is not known about this name is not filled in by inference; the blank stays a blank. The bar for a profile is evidence across lots, and it is the same bar for every name on this page. |
| PurePEPS | B | 4 | Banded B: the tidiest possible reading of four reports, and tidy is not the same as trustworthy. Four reports, which puts sampling error above anything the results themselves could demonstrate. What is not known about this name is not filled in by inference; the blank stays a blank. No purity figure among the four carries a stated reporting threshold, which is a real gap rather than a pedantic one. If this row is the deciding factor in an order, the order is being decided on too little. |
| Rayshine Peptide Biochemicals | C | 6 | Held at C: a name whose results are reproducible and reproducibly mediocre. Six submissions: the range where a record starts to look like something and is most likely to mislead. |
| HealthTide Biotech | C | 6 | C. On this table that reads as adequate, which is a lower bar than most buyers assume. Depth is six. Enough that the entry earns a row; not enough that the row earns a letter with confidence. Nothing in the file establishes who manufactured the material, only who sold it. The results agree with each other, which they would also do if they all came from one lot. The only route off this table runs through independent laboratories, not through correspondence with us. |
| Dankang BioHealth | C | 12 | Banded C. Neither the depth nor the dispersion offers an excuse for the letter; it is what was measured. A file of 12 reports — enough to see a shape, short of enough to justify a page. Repeat buyers are not distinguished from first-time ones in the twelve, which is a limitation of the record and is stated as one. Nothing here is sponsored, and no position on this table has ever been paid for. |
| Kits4less | C | 7 | Held at C: a name whose results are reproducible and reproducibly mediocre. Seven submissions: the range where a record starts to look like something and is most likely to mislead. What would move this row is not more of the same evidence but a different kind of it. |
| Huayi Biotechnology | C | 19 | Banded C. The results are middling and they are middling consistently, which is at least informative. Depth of 19 reports — long enough to be interesting, short enough to be wrong. Nothing here has been verified by us. The results were submitted, not commissioned. A short true row is preferable to a long inferred one, and this is the short version on purpose. |
| Anlv Biotechnology | C | 10 | C. On this table that reads as adequate, which is a lower bar than most buyers assume. Depth: 10 reports, spread over a period rather than clustered in one. Agreement across ten reports is a fact about the submissions before it is a fact about the supplier. The submissions describe vials that arrived, which is a narrower claim than the name at the head of the row implies. Nothing here is sponsored, and no position on this table has ever been paid for. |
| Xingtai Pukelai Technology Co | C | 6 | C band. The consistency is real; what it is consistent about is the problem. Six submissions. Each is real; together they remain a small sample of an unknown population. Two of the usual columns are empty here because filling them would mean guessing. |
| EHZ Peptides | C | 39 | Assigned C on a record that does not move much, which makes the letter mean more here than it does on most rows. Across 39 submissions the reading has been stable, most recently as well as historically. |
| Zztai Peptide | C | 30 | C band. The consistency is real; what it is consistent about is the problem. Coverage of 30 submissions. At this depth the results are the finding rather than the sample size. Nobody submitting to this table was asked to, which is the record's main virtue and its main gap at once. We link out to the profiled twenty and to nobody else, this row included. |
| Chimera Peptides | C | 8 | Assigned C on a record that does not move much, which makes the letter mean more here than it does on most rows. Eight independently submitted results — respectable for an unprofiled name, thin in absolute terms. The record cannot tell you whether the same lot was tested twice, which flatters any apparent consistency. |
| Hangzhou Mandy Biotechnology | C | 14 | C band — not thin evidence this time, just unremarkable evidence. At 14 reports an average has started to mean something, which is precisely when it becomes tempting to over-read. The fourteen reports arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. Columns that cannot be filled honestly are left unfilled. |
| Yabang Peptide | C | 10 | Sits at C. Nothing alarming on file, and nothing that would make anyone choose this name over another. Depth of 10 reports — long enough to be interesting, short enough to be wrong. A purity figure without a wavelength is half a number, and a proportion of these are exactly that. The row will grow when the evidence does, in that order. |
| Evolve BioPep | C | 7 | C band — not thin evidence this time, just unremarkable evidence. Seven results across an unknown number of lots, which is the limitation that matters most here. Identity confirmation is largely absent from these submissions, which limits what any purity figure among them means. A supplier moves onto the profiled table by accumulating independently submitted results across more than one lot. This one has not. |
| Quenna PMQ | D | 15 | Banded D. The submissions agree with each other, which is the least reassuring way for a record like this to behave. That is 15 independently submitted results, none of them commissioned by us or by the supplier. Nobody here has held a vial from this supplier; the entry is assembled entirely from what was sent in. No submission has been excluded for being inconvenient, including the ones that sit badly with the rest. Nothing about this row changes because a supplier asks for it to change. |
| Nanjing Xiyuxun Technology XYX | D | 3 | Held at band D. This is one of the few entries where the evidence is adequate and the news is bad. Three reports. The honest position at this count is that nothing is known, and that is the position taken. The submissions describe vials that arrived, which is a narrower claim than the name at the head of the row implies. |
| Welon Peptide Solutions | D | 5 | Band D, and the row stays short because the letter is already the whole of the finding. Five reports, arriving over a period nobody controlled, from buyers nobody selected. Nothing here has been re-tested by a second buyer on the same lot, which would be the cheapest check available. |
| Xingtai Lesda Technology | E | 6 | Band E, and the row stays short because the letter is already the whole of the finding. Six results, with no way to know how many distinct lots are behind them. Method varies between the laboratories these results came from, and that variation is inside the numbers rather than beside them. |
| Qingdao Hongshengda Trading | E | 4 | Sits at band E. Nothing about the depth of the record softens what is in it. Four submissions on file. The next one has a real chance of changing the reading, which is what thin means. |
| ZZQ Peptides | E | 22 | Banded E. The submissions agree with each other, which is the least reassuring way for a record like this to behave. That is 22 independently submitted results, none of them commissioned by us or by the supplier. The record cannot tell you whether the same lot was tested twice, which flatters any apparent consistency. |
| Changan District Sheng Peptide Trading | E | 7 | Banded E. A better result from here would be welcome and would change this row; nothing so far has. The file has seven results in it — more than most names on this table, and less than any name above it. No result here has been adjusted, normalised or excluded, and the row is rougher for it. A supplier moves onto the profiled table by accumulating independently submitted results across more than one lot. This one has not. |
| UWA Elite Peptides | E | 16 | Band E. Read the letter literally — it is what the submissions said, not what anyone here thinks of the company. On file: 16 results. Another ten would settle several of the questions this row leaves open. The name is recorded as buyers wrote it, which is not the same thing as a legal entity. A row here is not a shortlist entry. It is a record of what has been submitted, and no more than that. |
| Hangzhou Youngpeptide Biotechnology HYB | E | 15 | Held at band E. This is one of the few entries where the evidence is adequate and the news is bad. Depth: 15 reports, spread over a period rather than clustered in one. No claim on this row rests on anything the supplier said about itself. |
| Modern Aminos | E | 4 | Band E. Read the letter literally — it is what the submissions said, not what anyone here thinks of the company. Single-figure coverage at four reports, which means one unusual lot would move the whole picture. Where paperwork accompanied a report it named neither the column nor the gradient nor the wavelength. Thin evidence is a reason to say little, not a reason to say nothing, which is what this row is for. The band and the count belong together, and quoting either alone misrepresents the row. |
| Shanghai OuDaXin New Material Technology Center | E | 43 | Band E, and the row stays short because the letter is already the whole of the finding. The file holds 43 independently submitted results — depth is emphatically not the issue with this row. A purity figure without a wavelength is half a number, and a proportion of these are exactly that. |
| Shenzhen Jiechuang Trading | E | 8 | Banded E, and that is not a coverage artefact — the record is unfavourable and it is published as it stands. Fewer than ten submissions. That is the whole of the evidence base and the whole of the reason this row is short. Two of the usual columns are empty here because filling them would mean guessing. |
| Shaanxi Dideu Medichem | E | 6 | Banded E, and that is not a coverage artefact — the record is unfavourable and it is published as it stands. At six reports the picture is suggestive rather than settled, and it is published as suggestive. |
| Qingdao VitaConin International Trading | E | 5 | Sits at band E. Nothing about the depth of the record softens what is in it. Only five reports, so treat every pattern visible in them as a hypothesis. Nothing in the file distinguishes a manufacturer from a reseller, and this row asserts neither. A link is a signal, and there is nothing here to signal. |
| Guangzhou Lengiuanhuang Cosmetics | E | 4 | Held at band E: consistent, and consistently at the wrong end of the scale. The file has four results in it — more than most names on this table, and less than any name above it. No result here has been adjusted, normalised or excluded, and the row is rougher for it. If you have independently obtained results on material from here, they are worth posting; that is how a row becomes a page. |
| Shanghai JinBei Chemical Technology | B | 18 | Banded B: the tidiest possible reading of eighteen reports, and tidy is not the same as trustworthy. Coverage of 18 submissions: a shape is visible and it is not yet a stable one. The reports count is what was received, not what was requested; nothing here was sampled to a design. The only route off this table runs through independent laboratories, not through correspondence with us. |
| Peptide Technologies | B | 11 | Banded B: the tidiest possible reading of eleven reports, and tidy is not the same as trustworthy. At 11 reports an average has started to mean something, which is precisely when it becomes tempting to over-read. Consistency between unrelated buyers is worth more than consistency within one buyer's order, and the record does not always let the two be told apart. |
| Pura Peptides | X | 1 | Unrated, and likely to stay that way until submissions arrive from a second lot. Depth: one. Anything said beyond restating that would be extrapolation. |
| Peptide Partners | B to C | 64 | Band B to band C. A single-band spread is the resolution limit of this table, not a finding about the supplier. There are 64 results on file, from enough distinct buyers that one unhappy customer cannot account for the pattern. The gaps in this row are gaps in the evidence rather than gaps in the write-up. No part of this entry was generated from a template of claims about the company. |
| Bfflist AMO | B to C | 63 | Two bands, band B and band C, with the lower end rare enough not to dominate the reading. With 63 reports in hand, what keeps this off the profiled table is not volume; it is that there is nothing else to say about the company. |
| Pure Tested Peptides | B to C | 7 | Band B to band C. A single-band spread is the resolution limit of this table, not a finding about the supplier. Seven results across an unknown number of lots, which is the limitation that matters most here. Identity confirmation is largely absent from these submissions, which limits what any purity figure among them means. Where this table and a supplier's own marketing disagree, this table is the one with the submissions behind it. |
| PeptiSlim | C to E | 38 | Reported from band C to band E — two bands of daylight, more than a method difference explains. Depth: 38 reports. Another one is unlikely to change the reading. The 38 reports arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. |
| Glamgurcraft Innovations Foreign Trade | X | 1 | No band. What is on file describes an order rather than a supplier, and the two are not the same object. With one report in hand, the sampling noise is larger than any effect the numbers could show. Documentation arriving with these submissions carries no method section, so the numbers cannot be compared with anything. We would rather be dull and correct about this name than interesting and wrong. |
| HkRoids | B to C | 14 | Results straddle band B and band C. That is narrow enough to be method rather than material. The record is 14 reports deep, which rules out thin evidence as the explanation for anything odd in it. The gaps in this row are gaps in the evidence rather than gaps in the write-up. |
| Yiwu Aozuo Trading Co | B to E | 91 | From band B at best to band E at worst, with the middle occupied as well. Coverage of 91 submissions — more than most of the profiled twenty have behind them. Nor does it correlate with order size, as far as the submissions show. If you have independently obtained results on material from here, they are worth posting; that is how a row becomes a page. |
| Peptide Haven | B | 4 | Banded B: the tidiest possible reading of four reports, and tidy is not the same as trustworthy. The record runs to four submissions and stops. These are buyers' results on material buyers bought, which is the only kind this table collects. A name can leave this table by accumulating evidence; it cannot leave by objecting. |
| Atomik Labz | B to C | 40 | Spans band B and band C only, which is as tight as an unprofiled record here gets. With 40 reports in hand, what keeps this off the profiled table is not volume; it is that there is nothing else to say about the company. Uniform results across 40 reports would be expected from a single production run and prove nothing beyond it. |
| Bulk Peptide Supply | B to E | 20 | A spread from band B to band E is a pattern consistent with more than one source behind one label — consistent with, not evidence of. With 20 submissions in, the picture has stopped moving much with each new one — the first sign a record is maturing. No address, no founding year and no testing history are published against this row, because none are held. Whatever you take from this row, take it about the submissions rather than about the supplier. |
| M-Peptides | B to C | 17 | Spans band B and band C only, which is as tight as an unprofiled record here gets. A count of 17 is the point at which dispersion becomes measurable and depth stops being the interesting variable. Agreement across seventeen reports is a fact about the submissions before it is a fact about the supplier. |
| Mai Peptide | C to E | 55 | Results run band C to band E, and an average across that is arithmetic rather than information. Behind the letter: 55 results, which makes this one of the better-covered names on a table full of thin ones. The spread is not an artefact of the laboratories used, as far as the submissions allow anyone to tell. Ask for a lot-specific certificate before ordering from anyone in this table, and read what comes back rather than merely that it came back. |
| Peptidology | B | 16 | Banded B: the tidiest possible reading of sixteen reports, and tidy is not the same as trustworthy. The record is 16 reports deep, which rules out thin evidence as the explanation for anything odd in it. The sixteen reports arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. Nothing here has been re-tested by a second buyer on the same lot, which would be the cheapest check available. No figure of ours appears against this name, and none will until the record supports one. |
| Hazel | X | 1 | Left blank rather than guessed. A letter here would be the most confident thing on the page and the least supported. One result — the point at which every entry on this table began, and where most of them did not stay. A second lot would be worth more here than ten further reports on the first. The entry exists so that a search for the name returns something true rather than nothing. |
| TCI | X | 1 | Left blank rather than guessed. A letter here would be the most confident thing on the page and the least supported. One. A record that short is a starting point rather than an assessment. No claim on this row rests on anything the supplier said about itself. |
| Uther | B to E | 69 | Full-scale dispersion, band B to band E. That is a stronger negative signal than a poor band would be. Depth: 69 reports. Another one is unlikely to change the reading. The spread is not an artefact of the laboratories used, as far as the submissions allow anyone to tell. |
| Shandong Shengyuan Peptide Technology | B to E | 24 | The reported range is band B to band E — wide enough that the word supplier may be doing too much work. Depth: 24 reports, spread over a period rather than clustered in one. No address, no founding year and no testing history are published against this row, because none are held. The letter is a summary of submissions and the submissions are listed nowhere else, which is a limitation worth knowing about. |
| LiliPeptide | C to E | 185 | Band C to band E, with submissions at both ends and no pattern in when each turns up. With 185 reports in, the count stops being interesting and the shape of the distribution takes over. A spread of that size usually has more than one source behind one label; the record is consistent with that and does not establish it. |
| Xingruida XDR | B to D | 64 | Banded band B to band D — wide enough that anyone planning against the midpoint will be wrong about half the time. With 64 reports in hand, what keeps this off the profiled table is not volume; it is that there is nothing else to say about the company. |
| Eternal Peptides | B | 23 | Banded B: the tidiest possible reading of 23 reports, and tidy is not the same as trustworthy. Two dozen or fewer, at 23, and the count is doing more work in this row than the letter is. |
| Tianjin Ruiwang New Material Technology Co | B to E | 107 | The submissions cover band B to band E. Nothing in them predicts the next one. A count of 107 is large enough that anomalies inside it are signal rather than noise. A spread of that size usually has more than one source behind one label; the record is consistent with that and does not establish it. The report count is published beside the letter because the letter on its own is the most misleading pair of characters on this page. |
| Polaris Peptides | B to D | 97 | Reported from band B to band D — two bands of daylight, more than a method difference explains. A count of 97 is large enough that anomalies inside it are signal rather than noise. |
| Injectify | B to E | 29 | Submissions land at band B, at band E and everywhere between, with no visible pattern in which arrives when. With 29 reports in hand, what keeps this off the profiled table is not volume; it is that there is nothing else to say about the company. The dispersion does not correlate with date in anything held here, so it is not a story about a process improving or decaying. Further reports would confirm the reading rather than alter it. Where this table and a supplier's own marketing disagree, this table is the one with the submissions behind it. |
| Precision Peptide Co | B to C | 21 | Reported in two neighbouring bands. Nothing in that pattern suggests more than one source behind the name. On file: 21 results. Another ten would settle several of the questions this row leaves open. Where a supplier certificate and an independent result disagreed, both were counted and neither was reconciled. |
| AKS Chem | X | 1 | Unrated, and likely to stay that way until submissions arrive from a second lot. One result — the point at which every entry on this table began, and where most of them did not stay. |
| Reta-Peptide | B to E | 144 | Band B to band E. Which end a given order lands on appears unrelated to anything a buyer can see in advance. A count of 144 is large enough that anomalies inside it are signal rather than noise. The dispersion does not correlate with date in anything held here, so it is not a story about a process improving or decaying. |
| Peptide-S | B to E | 125 | Band B to band E. Which end a given order lands on appears unrelated to anything a buyer can see in advance. Coverage of 125 submissions — more than most of the profiled twenty have behind them. The certificates submitted alongside these results were batch-level, and a batch certificate cannot be tied to any particular vial. The variance sits between lots rather than within them, so far as 125 reports can show. The report count is published beside the letter because the letter on its own is the most misleading pair of characters on this page. |
| Planet Peptide | B to D | 59 | Covers band B to band D. The range is published rather than a mean, because a mean here describes no lot that exists. A file of 59 reports — deep enough that thin evidence has stopped explaining anything here. |
| Henan Sahe Peptide | B to D | 18 | Reported from band B to band D — two bands of daylight, more than a method difference explains. That is 18 independently submitted results, none of them commissioned by us or by the supplier. Where a supplier certificate and an independent result disagreed, both were counted and neither was reconciled. Two lots from here are not reliably the same product in any sense a certificate would capture. Anyone quoting this row should quote the report count with it; the letter alone misleads. |
| Hunan Ruiwang Technology Center | B to C | 14 | Falls in band B and band C. The spread is small enough that an average would mean something, which is unusual on this page. There are 14 results on the record, which is where this table's willingness to generalise begins. The reports count is what was received, not what was requested; nothing here was sampled to a design. Nothing on this row was written from a supplier's own description of itself. |
| Skye Peptides | B to E | 73 | Band B to band E: a record this dispersed describes a channel rather than a process. The record runs 73 deep. At that size the interesting question is dispersion, not count. Repeat buyers are not distinguished from first-time ones in the 73, which is a limitation of the record and is stated as one. |
| Nuscience Peptides | B to D | 47 | Two bands wide, band B to band D, and the width is the part of this row worth reading. Depth 47. The count has stopped being the limiting factor and readers should stop treating it as one. Nor does it correlate with order size, as far as the submissions show. |
| NextechLabs | B to D | 30 | Two bands wide, band B to band D, and the width is the part of this row worth reading. Some 30 submissions sit on the record, accumulated without anyone commissioning them. Two lots from here are not reliably the same product in any sense a certificate would capture. Nothing about this row changes because a supplier asks for it to change. |
| Golden Eagle | B to C | 17 | Reported across band B and band C — a one-band spread, about what measurement noise alone produces. Behind the letter: 17 reports. Enough to describe, not enough to predict. Nothing on this row has been checked against a second laboratory. A row here is not a shortlist entry. It is a record of what has been submitted, and no more than that. |
| Peptide Worldwide | X | 1 | No band. What is on file describes an order rather than a supplier, and the two are not the same object. Just one report, so the row is short on purpose. The useful next submission is not another result on the same lot; it is one on a different lot. If this row is the deciding factor in an order, the order is being decided on too little. |
| HK Peptides | B to E | 343 | From band B to band E. The best submission on file and the worst are not describing the same product. A count of 343 is large enough that anomalies inside it are signal rather than noise. With 343 reports behind it, the row is limited by what buyers thought to test, not by how many tested. Columns that cannot be filled honestly are left unfilled. |
| Nexaph | B to E | 200 | Across band B to band E. Nothing that wide compresses into a band without discarding the only information in it. With 200 reports in, the count stops being interesting and the shape of the distribution takes over. The variance sits between lots rather than within them, so far as 200 reports can show. Two rows on this table with the same letter are not the same claim; the counts beside them differ by an order of magnitude. |
| BeiBangAn | C to D | 38 | Band C to band D, a gap one band wide, which is the smallest gap this scale can record. The record runs 38 deep. At that size the interesting question is dispersion, not count. The record is now long enough that its silences — sterility, endotoxin, identity — are themselves informative. Ask for a lot-specific certificate before ordering from anyone in this table, and read what comes back rather than merely that it came back. |
| Shandong Aishi Biotechnology | D to E | 37 | Two bands, band D and band E, with the lower end rare enough not to dominate the reading. There are 37 results on file, from enough distinct buyers that one unhappy customer cannot account for the pattern. A narrow record is easy to mistake for a reliable one, and the difference is how many lots are behind it. |
| Xingtai Jiachuang Technology | C to E | 31 | Two bands wide, band C to band E, and the width is the part of this row worth reading. A count of 31 is well past the point where more reports would be the answer to anything. The width means the row cannot be compressed for a comparison table, which is inconvenient and honest. |
| Zenith Jove Peptide ZJ | B to E | 26 | From band B at best to band E at worst, with the middle occupied as well. Coverage of 26 submissions. At this depth the results are the finding rather than the sample size. |
| Kerisite Shenzhen International | B to D | 16 | Band B to band D, with submissions at both ends and no pattern in when each turns up. The record is 16 reports deep, which rules out thin evidence as the explanation for anything odd in it. The high results and the low ones came from different buyers, which rules out one buyer's technique as the explanation. |
| YB Peptide | B to E | 10 | Runs band B to band E. Two orders from here are not reliably the same product in any sense a certificate would capture. Depth: 10 reports, spread over a period rather than clustered in one. The ten reports are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. |
| Qing Li Peptide | B to E | 260 | The reported range is band B to band E — wide enough that the word supplier may be doing too much work. A count of 260 is large enough that anomalies inside it are signal rather than noise. The width means the row cannot be compressed for a comparison table, which is inconvenient and honest. At this depth the remaining uncertainty is about what the supplier will do next, not about what it has done. A name appearing here has not been rejected; it has not been assessed. |
| Shanxi Qianyecao Biotech QYC | D to E | 66 | Two bands, band D and band E, with the lower end rare enough not to dominate the reading. At 66 submissions a single outlier no longer moves the row. |
| Verified Peptides | B to C | 34 | Banded band B to band C. Two neighbouring letters are close enough that a different integration convention could account for the whole gap. Depth 34. The count has stopped being the limiting factor and readers should stop treating it as one. At this depth the remaining uncertainty is about what the supplier will do next, not about what it has done. The submissions cover purity far better than they cover sterility, endotoxin or identity, and the gaps are not neutral. Nothing here should be read across to a different compound from the same supplier. |
| Hebei Rimao Technology | C to D | 32 | Band C to band D, a gap one band wide, which is the smallest gap this scale can record. With 32 reports in hand, what keeps this off the profiled table is not volume; it is that there is nothing else to say about the company. Further reports would confirm the reading rather than alter it. With 32 reports behind it, the row is limited by what buyers thought to test, not by how many tested. Nothing on this row is advice, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use. |
| Pure Rawz | B to D | 29 | Band B to band D, with submissions at both ends and no pattern in when each turns up. That is 29 results, more than several of the profiled twenty carry. |
| Heman Peptide HM | B to E | 29 | The record runs band B to band E, and there is no honest way to compress that into one letter. That is 29 results, more than several of the profiled twenty carry. |
| Shanghai Baoju | B to E | 21 | Every band, band B to band E. A range like that makes the report count the more informative column. Coverage stands at 21. Real depth for a name with no profile, and still a sample of a population nobody has defined. |
| ZLZ Peptide | B to E | 199 | Across band B to band E. Nothing that wide compresses into a band without discarding the only information in it. With 199 reports in, the count stops being interesting and the shape of the distribution takes over. |
| Peptide Sciences | B to E | 123 | Submissions land at band B, at band E and everywhere between, with no visible pattern in which arrives when. There are 123 results here. Depth is not the limitation and has not been for a long time. Averaging across that spread produces a figure describing no lot anyone actually received. Testing your own vial usually costs less than the vial, and it answers a question this row cannot. |
| Allen Biotechnology Co ABC | B to E | 43 | Full-scale dispersion, band B to band E. That is a stronger negative signal than a poor band would be. Depth of 43 reports: the sample is now large enough that the variance in it is a property of the supplier. The variance sits between lots rather than within them, so far as 43 reports can show. |
| Peptide Crafters | B to D | 39 | Band B through band D. A two-band spread means which lot you receive matters more than which supplier you chose. At 39 submissions a single outlier no longer moves the row. The 39 reports arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. |
| Simple Peptide | B to D | 26 | Spans band B to band D. Two bands is where a range stops being noise and starts being a description. With 26 reports in hand, what keeps this off the profiled table is not volume; it is that there is nothing else to say about the company. Nothing about 26 reports makes the supplier accountable for them; they were submitted by customers, not published by the company. A name appearing here has not been rejected; it has not been assessed. |
| Top Peptide | C to D | 21 | Two bands, band C and band D, with the lower end rare enough not to dominate the reading. At 21 reports an average has started to mean something, which is precisely when it becomes tempting to over-read. The 21 reports are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. Two rows on this table with the same letter are not the same claim; the counts beside them differ by an order of magnitude. |
| Zen Peptides | B to C | 13 | Sits across band B and band C — a supplier with a band and some scatter, rather than a supplier with a range. Behind the letter: 13 reports. Enough to describe, not enough to predict. The thirteen reports arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. If the report count doubles and the reading holds, this row will still be a row — depth alone does not earn a page. |
| Amino Lair | B to D | 12 | Banded band B to band D — wide enough that anyone planning against the midpoint will be wrong about half the time. The file holds 12 submissions; another ten would be welcome and would probably surprise nobody. |
| Oupeptide | B to E | 149 | The submissions cover band B to band E. Nothing in them predicts the next one. The record is 149 submissions deep, which is as much as this table holds on anyone unprofiled. The variance sits between lots rather than within them, so far as 149 reports can show. |
| Paramount Peptides | B to E | 65 | The record runs band B to band E, and there is no honest way to compress that into one letter. Some 65 submissions sit on the record, accumulated without anyone commissioning them. The range is reported end to end because a trimmed one would be a judgement rather than a record. |
| Yimei | B to E | 54 | Results occupy the whole scale, band B to band E, which is the least useful shape a record can take for anyone trying to plan. Behind the letter: 54 results, which makes this one of the better-covered names on a table full of thin ones. |
| LSPL | C to E | 40 | Banded band C to band E — wide enough that anyone planning against the midpoint will be wrong about half the time. There are 40 results on file, from enough distinct buyers that one unhappy customer cannot account for the pattern. |
| Royal Peptides | B to C | 30 | Banded band B to band C. Two neighbouring letters are close enough that a different integration convention could account for the whole gap. Some 30 submissions sit on the record, accumulated without anyone commissioning them. Nothing about 30 reports makes the supplier accountable for them; they were submitted by customers, not published by the company. This is the whole of what is held. There is no longer version of it elsewhere on the site. |
| Shenzhen Loga Tech LG LOGA | B to E | 21 | Every band, band B to band E. A range like that makes the report count the more informative column. At 21 reports an average has started to mean something, which is precisely when it becomes tempting to over-read. Where paperwork accompanied a report it named neither the column nor the gradient nor the wavelength. Buyers landing at the good end and buyers landing at the poor end have described the same packaging. Anyone quoting this row should quote the report count with it; the letter alone misleads. |
| ZhuoYan lab | C to E | 30 | Two bands, band C to band E. Consistency is a separate property from quality, and this name has settled neither. A count of 30 is well past the point where more reports would be the answer to anything. |
| Astro Peptides | B to E | 29 | Reported band B to band E. The variance is the entry; a mean would be a fabrication with a decimal point. Some 29 submissions sit on the record, accumulated without anyone commissioning them. No purity figure among the 29 carries a stated reporting threshold, which is a real gap rather than a pedantic one. |
| Mix Peptides | D to E | 29 | Results straddle band D and band E. That is narrow enough to be method rather than material. At 29 reports the interval has narrowed to the point where the spread means what it appears to mean. The certificates submitted alongside these results were batch-level, and a batch certificate cannot be tied to any particular vial. The absence of a caution here is not the presence of an endorsement. |
| Science | B to C | 12 | Band B to band C, a gap one band wide, which is the smallest gap this scale can record. Depth of 12 reports — long enough to be interesting, short enough to be wrong. The twelve reports arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. Treat it as a name that has been seen, not as a recommendation and not as a warning about a company. |
| TSC Top Supplements China | C to E | 99 | Covers band C to band E. The range is published rather than a mean, because a mean here describes no lot that exists. Behind the letter: 99 results, and the reading has held steady over a long stretch of them. With 99 reports behind it, the row is limited by what buyers thought to test, not by how many tested. Reading a row here as a ranking is a category error the table tries hard not to invite. |
| HXNet | C to E | 91 | Band C to band E, with submissions at both ends and no pattern in when each turns up. Coverage runs to 91 submissions, across many buyers and many lots. The 91 reports are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. With 91 reports behind it, the row is limited by what buyers thought to test, not by how many tested. The table is ordered as it was compiled, and the order carries no meaning. |
| Xian Yihang Technology | C to E | 48 | Banded band C to band E — wide enough that anyone planning against the midpoint will be wrong about half the time. Coverage runs to 48 submissions, enough to see how the name behaves over time rather than on one day. Neither end of the range is an outlier in the statistical sense; both ends have company. None of this is a comparison against the twenty profiled above; the evidence bases are not comparable. |
| Haikou Mingheng Technology | B to C | 16 | Band B to band C, a gap one band wide, which is the smallest gap this scale can record. Depth: 16 reports, spread over a period rather than clustered in one. The name is recorded as buyers wrote it, which is not the same thing as a legal entity. |
| SRY Labs | B to E | 111 | Band B to band E: a record this dispersed describes a channel rather than a process. The file holds 111 independently submitted results, accumulated over an extended period. The 111 reports are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. |
| Accelerate Labs | B to E | 20 | Submissions span band B to band E. When a record covers that much of the scale, the average is an artefact and the spread is the fact. Coverage of 20 submissions: a shape is visible and it is not yet a stable one. |
| PurePeptides | B to E | 15 | Reported band B to band E. The variance is the entry; a mean would be a fabrication with a decimal point. Some 15 submissions, across an unknown number of lots. |
| Regenerative Research | X | 2 | Left without a letter. The submission on file may well be representative; nothing about it demonstrates that it is. Just two reports, so the row is short on purpose. The useful next submission is not another result on the same lot; it is one on a different lot. The row will grow when the evidence does, in that order. |
| Zhejiang Yichenkang Biotechnology | B to E | 58 | Band B to band E, and the distance between the ends is larger than the distance between most of the profiled twenty. At 58 submissions a single outlier no longer moves the row. The range is reported end to end because a trimmed one would be a judgement rather than a record. Reading a row here as a ranking is a category error the table tries hard not to invite. |
| Biolongevity Labs | B to E | 33 | Runs band B to band E. Two orders from here are not reliably the same product in any sense a certificate would capture. A file of 33 reports — deep enough that thin evidence has stopped explaining anything here. The variance sits between lots rather than within them, so far as 33 reports can show. |
| Alpha-Gen | B to E | 30 | Results occupy the whole scale, band B to band E, which is the least useful shape a record can take for anyone trying to plan. At 30 reports the interval has narrowed to the point where the spread means what it appears to mean. The variance sits between lots rather than within them, so far as 30 reports can show. The 30 reports are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. The entry exists so that a search for the name returns something true rather than nothing. |
| LN Peptides | B to E | 28 | Band B to band E, and the distance between the ends is larger than the distance between most of the profiled twenty. That is 28 results, more than several of the profiled twenty carry. Repeat buyers are not distinguished from first-time ones in the 28, which is a limitation of the record and is stated as one. |
| Forever Young Pharmacy | B to E | 26 | From band B to band E. The best submission on file and the worst are not describing the same product. With 26 reports in hand, what keeps this off the profiled table is not volume; it is that there is nothing else to say about the company. Nothing in the file explains the width, and this row does not invent a reason for it. |
| Prime Peptides | B to E | 19 | Spans band B to band E. A buyer cannot plan against a distribution that shape, and it cannot be summarised into one either. Depth: 19 reports, spread over a period rather than clustered in one. The nineteen reports are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. Where the record is silent, this row is silent, which is the only editorial rule the table has. |
| Haikou Mingheng Biotechnology | D to E | 11 | Reported in two neighbouring bands. Nothing in that pattern suggests more than one source behind the name. A file of 11 reports — enough to see a shape, short of enough to justify a page. Agreement across eleven reports is a fact about the submissions before it is a fact about the supplier. |
| Dragon Pharma | X | 1 | No letter assigned. A band would put this name on the same axis as rows with a hundred times the evidence. One submission on file and no way to know whether it was a typical one. The one report arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. We would rather be dull and correct about this name than interesting and wrong. |
| Liberty Peptides | B to E | 16 | Reported across the full width of the scale, band B to band E. A count of 16 is the point at which dispersion becomes measurable and depth stops being the interesting variable. The sixteen reports are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. Read the row alongside the method question rather than instead of it: a band without a method is half a number. |
| Amino Asylum | B to C | 15 | Reported across band B and band C — a one-band spread, about what measurement noise alone produces. There are 15 results on the record, which is where this table's willingness to generalise begins. The tidiness of the numbers is the least surprising thing about a record this size. A narrow record is easy to mistake for a reliable one, and the difference is how many lots are behind it. Whatever you take from this row, take it about the submissions rather than about the supplier. |
| Amino Amigos | B to E | 37 | Spans band B to band E. A buyer cannot plan against a distribution that shape, and it cannot be summarised into one either. There are 37 results on file, from enough distinct buyers that one unhappy customer cannot account for the pattern. The 37 reports arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. |
| Platinum Cryo | B to E | 24 | Reported across the full width of the scale, band B to band E. Coverage stands at 24. Real depth for a name with no profile, and still a sample of a population nobody has defined. Nothing on this row has been checked against a second laboratory. |
| Elite Research USA | B to E | 47 | A spread from band B to band E is a pattern consistent with more than one source behind one label — consistent with, not evidence of. At 47 submissions a single outlier no longer moves the row. Buyers landing at the good end and buyers landing at the poor end have described the same packaging. A name can leave this table by accumulating evidence; it cannot leave by objecting. |
| Limitless Life Nootropics | B to D | 22 | Spans band B to band D. Two bands is where a range stops being noise and starts being a description. The record is 22 reports deep, which rules out thin evidence as the explanation for anything odd in it. The 22 reports are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. Repeat buyers are not distinguished from first-time ones in the 22, which is a limitation of the record and is stated as one. Nothing on this row was written from a supplier's own description of itself. |
| Oasis Peptides | B to E | 16 | Band B to band E — every band this table has, from one name. Two dozen or fewer, at 16, and the count is doing more work in this row than the letter is. No purity figure among the sixteen carries a stated reporting threshold, which is a real gap rather than a pedantic one. The table is ordered as it was compiled, and the order carries no meaning. |
| Suaway Lab Research | B to E | 39 | Covers band B to band E. The range is reported rather than a band, because a band would imply a centre this record does not have. That is 39 results, more than several of the profiled twenty carry. With 39 reports behind it, the row is limited by what buyers thought to test, not by how many tested. |
| Pharma Grade Peptides | B to E | 18 | Band B through band E. Consistency is the property being measured on this table, and here it is absent. At 18 reports an average has started to mean something, which is precisely when it becomes tempting to over-read. The eighteen reports are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. Repeat buyers are not distinguished from first-time ones in the eighteen, which is a limitation of the record and is stated as one. The same standard produced every row on this page, including the ones that read better than this one. |
| PeptiLab Research | B to E | 15 | Covers band B to band E. The range is reported rather than a band, because a band would imply a centre this record does not have. There are 15 results behind this row. Ten to twenty-odd is where the table starts taking a record seriously and stops short of profiling it. |
| Tydes | C to E | 41 | Results occupy band C to band E — a spread no single letter represents honestly. The file holds 41 independently submitted results — depth is emphatically not the issue with this row. The variance sits between lots rather than within them, so far as 41 reports can show. Buyers who post results change these rows; buyers who post opinions do not. |
| Loti Labs | B to E | 32 | Band B through band E. Consistency is the property being measured on this table, and here it is absent. A count of 32 is well past the point where more reports would be the answer to anything. Depth like this makes the row's remaining gaps a choice by buyers rather than an accident of volume. The variance sits between lots rather than within them, so far as 32 reports can show. Treat it as a name that has been seen, not as a recommendation and not as a warning about a company. |
| Wolverine Peptides | X | 1 | Held unbanded. The scale starts where a second lot starts, and this entry has not reached it. With one report in hand, the sampling noise is larger than any effect the numbers could show. The one report are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. Nothing on this row is advice, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use. |
| Amplified Amino | C to E | 12 | From band C to band E: dispersion of that size is the finding, and it is not a flattering one. All 12 reports came from buyers with no reason to coordinate, which is the record's main virtue. The twelve reports arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. The entry will be revised when the record changes and not before. |
| Alimo Peptide | D to E | 7 | Spans band D and band E only, which is as tight as an unprofiled record here gets. Seven reports, arriving over a period nobody controlled, from buyers nobody selected. The absence of a bad result is not the same as evidence of a good process, and at this count the distinction matters. Any pattern in seven reports is a coincidence until a second lot agrees with it. Absence from the profiled twenty is a statement about the record rather than about the company. |
| Richards Biotech Simply Richards | X | 1 | Unrated, because the only honest summary of this record is the record itself. One. A record that short is a starting point rather than an assessment. Agreement across one report is a fact about the submissions before it is a fact about the supplier. |
| Coastal Peptides | B to E | 26 | Band B to band E — every band this table has, from one name. Behind the letter: 26 results, which makes this one of the better-covered names on a table full of thin ones. The 26 reports arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. |
| Peptides 4 Research | C to E | 20 | Band C through band E. A two-band spread means which lot you receive matters more than which supplier you chose. With 20 submissions in, the picture has stopped moving much with each new one — the first sign a record is maturing. Neither end of the range is an outlier in the statistical sense; both ends have company. The twenty reports arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. If a second trading name appears under the same ownership, the row will be split rather than merged. |
| Deuschem | B to E | 29 | Submissions span band B to band E. When a record covers that much of the scale, the average is an artefact and the spread is the fact. A count of 29 is well past the point where more reports would be the answer to anything. The variance sits between lots rather than within them, so far as 29 reports can show. |
| Hybiopeptides | X | 1 | Unrated, because the only honest summary of this record is the record itself. One report on file — a count small enough that the difference between good and lucky is unresolvable. Uniform results across one report would be expected from a single production run and prove nothing beyond it. |
| Peptide Gurus | B to E | 45 | Band B to band E, top to bottom. Three bands of spread under one label is a sourcing question rather than a measurement question. That is 45 results, more than several of the profiled twenty carry. The 45 reports are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. |
| Swiss Chems | C to E | 9 | Results run band C to band E, and an average across that is arithmetic rather than information. Single-figure coverage at nine reports, which means one unusual lot would move the whole picture. Most of what arrives is purity; content assays are rarer, and the two answer different questions. |
| WllyBIO | X | 1 | No band assigned: there is no dispersion to measure and no depth to fall back on. Just one report, so the row is short on purpose. Until results arrive from a lot nobody here has seen, the count is the only thing that will change. A short true row is preferable to a long inferred one, and this is the short version on purpose. |
| Biolabshop Limited | C to E | 6 | Band C to band E. The good submissions and the poor ones are not obviously products of the same process. Six submissions on file. The next one has a real chance of changing the reading, which is what thin means. |
| Peptides For Sale | D to E | 21 | Band D to band E, a gap one band wide, which is the smallest gap this scale can record. Depth: 21 reports, spread over a period rather than clustered in one. Agreement across 21 reports is a fact about the submissions before it is a fact about the supplier. The absence of a bad result is not the same as evidence of a good process, and at this count the distinction matters. Absence from the profiled twenty is a statement about the record rather than about the company. |
| NuLife Peptides | B | 6 | Banded B: the tidiest possible reading of six reports, and tidy is not the same as trustworthy. Fewer than ten submissions. That is the whole of the evidence base and the whole of the reason this row is short. The six reports are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. The same standard produced every row on this page, including the ones that read better than this one. |
| Wuhan Newtop Biotech | X | 2 | Left without a letter. The submission on file may well be representative; nothing about it demonstrates that it is. With two reports in hand, the sampling noise is larger than any effect the numbers could show. Any pattern in two reports is a coincidence until a second lot agrees with it. The entry will be revised when the record changes and not before. |
| LOOKBiotech | X | 2 | Unrated. The entry exists so that a search for this name finds something true rather than nothing at all. Two reports. The honest position at this count is that nothing is known, and that is the position taken. Until results arrive from a lot nobody here has seen, the count is the only thing that will change. This is the whole of what is held. There is no longer version of it elsewhere on the site. |
| PRIVATE | X | 2 | No band assigned: there is no dispersion to measure and no depth to fall back on. Two results — the point at which every entry on this table began, and where most of them did not stay. At two reports the row is mostly a description of what is missing. |
| Peptide Ark | X | 2 | Unrated, and that is the finding rather than a placeholder for one. The whole record is two submissions. The two reports are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. Buyers who post results change these rows; buyers who post opinions do not. |
| Zhuoyue Biotechnology | X | 1 | Unrated. The distinction that matters at this depth is between not yet measured and measured and poor, and this is the former. One report on file — a count small enough that the difference between good and lucky is unresolvable. |
| Hebei Chengtong Technology | X | 1 | No letter assigned. A band would put this name on the same axis as rows with a hundred times the evidence. One submission, from which nothing about the next order follows. Most of what arrives is purity; content assays are rarer, and the two answer different questions. |
| Coffee and Peppers | X | 1 | Held unbanded. The scale starts where a second lot starts, and this entry has not reached it. One submission on file and no way to know whether it was a typical one. The one report arrived from unconnected buyers, which is the only thing keeping the row from being one person's experience. Agreement across one report is a fact about the submissions before it is a fact about the supplier. Independent testing of the vial you actually receive outranks every letter on this page, including the profiled twenty. |
| Marvel Peptide | X | 1 | Unrated: the file describes what arrived once, which is not a property of the seller. Coverage is one report — below the threshold at which this table will generalise. The one report are unweighted: a buyer who tested three vials counts three times, as they should. |
| HK Fat Cat | X | 1 | No grade. A record this short cannot be distinguished from chance in either direction. One submission covers one lot, and a lot is the unit a supplier controls least. The report count is what was received, not what was requested; nothing here was sampled to a design. A link is a signal, and there is nothing here to signal. |
| Guangzhou Yuao Trading | X | 1 | We hold this at no band. Naming a letter would transfer confidence we do not have to a reader who cannot check it. The whole record is one submission. The report count is what was received, not what was requested; nothing here was sampled to a design. At one report the row is mostly a description of what is missing. Independent testing of the vial you actually receive outranks every letter on this page, including the profiled twenty. |
| PepKits | X | 1 | No grade. A record this short cannot be distinguished from chance in either direction. One submission, from which nothing about the next order follows. At one report the row is mostly a description of what is missing. |
| Lejian Biotech Peptide | X | 1 | We hold this at no band. Naming a letter would transfer confidence we do not have to a reader who cannot check it. One submission covers one lot, and a lot is the unit a supplier controls least. |
| PepLab Solutions | X | 1 | Unrated: the file describes what arrived once, which is not a property of the seller. The file holds one independently submitted result and no second lot to compare against. Repeat buyers are not distinguished from first-time ones in the one, which is a limitation of the record and is stated as one. The row is short because the evidence is, and lengthening one without the other is how tables like this go wrong. |
| Explicit Sarms | X | 1 | No band, because one report answers a question about one order rather than about a supplier. Coverage is one report — below the threshold at which this table will generalise. What would move this row is not more of the same evidence but a different kind of it. |
| Weifang Xingbei International Trade | X | 1 | No band, because one report answers a question about one order rather than about a supplier. The evidence base is one report deep. It is real, and it is one lot's worth. The tidiness of the numbers is the least surprising thing about a record this size. |
| Advanced Technology and Industrial | X | 1 | Unrated, and that is the finding rather than a placeholder for one. The whole record is one submission. Thin evidence is a reason to say little, not a reason to say nothing, which is what this row is for. |
A supplier here has not been assessed. Its absence from the profiled set is a statement about how much we have seen, not about the company.
How to read this table. A rating aggregates opinion. It is not a measurement, and ours is on a ten-point scale that no other community uses. The column that carries the most information is the last one: the storefront, where you can read the seller's own claims against this page. After that, read each profile for whether documentation is lot-specific and whether independent results exist across more than one lot. A supplier at 9.5 with batch-level certificates is a weaker proposition than one at 9.0 whose certificates name the vial in your hand. See the sourcing policy.
Independent testing and review services
Four services are referenced throughout the answers on this site. They are not vendors and we have no relationship with any of them.
JanoshikAnalytical laboratory. HPLC purity, identity confirmation and quantified content, with the chromatogram supplied.
MedutestIndependent testing service, used here mainly as a second opinion on a batch already tested elsewhere.
PeptideMeterAggregates and publishes submitted test results with a stated rating methodology.
VendorInvestigateVendor review and verification service; the audit trail matters more than the badge.
Sigma-Aldrich - Certified Reference Materials
Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.
Shop standards