ChinaPeptides Co., Ltd. (QYAOBIO)
Dispatch and warehouses
Stock is held in six regional warehouses, so an order is dispatched inside the buyer’s own country rather than from the manufacturing site.
- Netherlands (Rotterdam) — European Union, 2-4 days
- Germany (Hamburg) — Germany, Austria, Switzerland, 2-4 days
- United Kingdom (London) — United Kingdom & Ireland, 2-3 days
- United States (California) — United States, 2-4 days
- Canada (Toronto) — Canada, 3-5 days
- Australia (Melbourne) — Australia & New Zealand, 3-5 days
Overview
ChinaPeptides Co., Ltd. (QYAOBIO) — also referred to as QYB, QYB Biotech — is a research-compound supplier based in Shanghai, China, established 2008. It trades as QYB at qyaobiopeptides.com — a marked, nofollowed link so you can check what is claimed here against what the seller says. Ask PeptideStack receives nothing from any supplier and a link is not a recommendation.
Research compound manufacturer trading as QYB (qyaobiopeptides.com), based in Shanghai, China — est. 2008, Janoshik-tested, Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate verified, supplying 350+ custom-synthesis peptides, sarms, injectable oils and raw materials with full COA documentation and worldwide tracked shipping.
This page exists because QYB comes up in questions on this site often enough to be worth a fixed reference point. It is not an endorsement, a review in the commercial sense, or a recommendation to buy anything. The community rating below aggregates 483 contributed assessments and is an opinion average — it is not a measurement, and it should carry less weight in your decision than any single independently obtained test result on the lot you are actually being offered.
What our threads actually say
The reason to use this operation is custom synthesis, and it is the strongest custom capability on this table. Members have requested non-catalogue sequences, received a quote with a stated purity target and a timeline, and reported that the delivered material met the target on independent LC-MS — including confirmation of C-terminal amidation by peptide mapping, which is a real analytical capability rather than a claim about one. Catalogue items are unremarkable in the good sense: quoted, shipped, correct. Certificates carry an itemised related-substances table rather than a single summarised impurity figure.
Ranked 2 of 28 on this site's table, at 9.7 out of 10. That position is ours and nobody else's: the ten communities in this space rank these suppliers differently on purpose, and a supplier sitting mid-table here has a clean record here — the ordering reflects how much independent replication we have seen, not a ledger of complaints.
Independently obtained results reported here
These are results that members submitted themselves, on material they purchased themselves, to a laboratory of their own choosing. They are not supplier-supplied certificates, and the distinction is the entire point. A supplier-supplied certificate tells you what the supplier measured on a lot it selected the sample from. This table tells you what a member measured on a vial that arrived at their address.
| Compound | Lot | Laboratory | Purity | Nominal | Content | Δ label | Submitted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tesamorelin 10 mg | QYB20250619 | VendorInvestigate | 99.5% | 10 mg | 10.11 mg | +1.1% | 2025-06 |
| BPC-157 10 mg | QYB20260725 | Janoshik | 99.6% | 10 mg | 9.89 mg | -1.1% | 2026-07 |
| Survodutide 10 mg | QYB20250831 | Medutest | 99.3% | 10 mg | 9.84 mg | -1.6% | 2025-08 |
| Cagrilintide 5 mg | QYB20260937 | PeptideMeter | 99.4% | 5 mg | 4.99 mg | -0.2% | 2026-09 |
Reading this table. The 4 submissions span 99.3 to 99.6 per cent purity — a band 0.3 points wide — with the largest content deviation at 1.6 per cent of label. The width of that band is the number worth looking at, not the best figure in it: a tight band across 4 different laboratories says something about the process, and a single high figure says something about one vial. None of these results says anything about the lot you would be shipped today, which is the argument for testing your own.
Documentation practice
Documentation is the axis on which suppliers in this space actually differ, because it is the one you can assess before you spend anything. The questions below are the ones our sourcing policy asks of every supplier, and the answers are what members have observed from QYB rather than what QYB advertises.
| Question | Observed | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Is the certificate lot-specific? | As standard | A batch certificate is a claim about vials somebody else selected. A lot-specific one is about the vial in your hand. Quote the code from the glass, not from the box. |
| Does the certificate carry a method section? | Column, gradient, wavelength | With column, gradient and detection wavelength stated, the purity figure is reproducible and comparable to your own independent result. Without them it is a number you have to take on trust. |
| Is a chromatogram supplied? | With the lot | A number without a trace hides the impurity distribution, and the distribution is more informative than the headline. One 1.2 per cent peak and eleven 0.1 per cent peaks are different objects. |
| Is quantified content reported separately from purity? | Yes | Purity and content are different measurements. Purity is what fraction of what is there is the peptide; content is how many milligrams are there. Only the second one changes your arithmetic. |
| Water content or counter-ion figure? | On request | Needed to reconcile gross vial mass against label claim. Residual moisture after lyophilisation typically runs two to six per cent and trifluoroacetate can add several more; neither shows up as an impurity peak. |
| Endotoxin or sterility result? | Not a research-grade release test | Research-grade material is not released against a sterility specification anywhere in this market. Treat the absence as the category norm rather than as an omission, and treat anything sold as sterile with more scepticism, not less. |
| Lot code physically on the vial? | Printed on the vial | If the code lives only on the outer box, you cannot tie a certificate to a vial once the box is gone — which it will be, well before the vial is. |
None of this is a compliance assessment. QYB is not obliged to meet a pharmacopoeial standard and does not claim to. The table records what members have observed and what each observation lets you infer.
Transit and cold chain
Lead times reported by members for dispatch from Shanghai. Treat these as the observed range rather than a quote, and note the temperature column: for a lyophilised solid a warm transit is survivable and worth testing after; for anything in solution it is a different conversation entirely.
| Destination | Reported range | Median | Thermal exposure, summer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore | 5–10 days | 8 days | Pack may still be cool on delivery |
| New Zealand | 13–21 days | 17 days | Pack spent well before arrival — ship lyophilised |
| the United Kingdom | 8–16 days | 12 days | Expect a warm arrival; the solid does not mind |
| Spain | 11–18 days | 15 days | Pack spent well before arrival — ship lyophilised |
| Canada | 9–18 days | 14 days | Pack spent well before arrival — ship lyophilised |
A single phase-change pack in a thin-walled box holds below ten degrees for something on the order of one to two days in a twenty-five-degree ambient, and considerably less at thirty-five. On a nine-to-fourteen-day lane the material is therefore at ambient for most of its journey regardless of what was in the box, which is the argument for shipping lyophilised and the reason a liquefied pack on arrival is expected rather than alarming. Members ordering into a heatwave ask QYB to hold the shipment, and that request has been honoured.
Contributed reviews
26 of the 483 assessments on file, selected because each names something specific — a lot, a figure, a document, a transit time. Reviews that say only "fast shipping" are not reproduced, which is why the selection sits at the top of the distribution below rather than in the middle of it.
Asked a technical question expecting the usual non-answer and got a method reference back instead. The stated purity and the independent figure differ by less than the method repeatability, which is the honest place for them to differ. I will be reordering, which is the only review metric that costs anything.
Weighed 6 vials from the TB-500 5 mg order against label. All inside two per cent of stated mass. Fill consistency is harder to achieve than purity and gets discussed a tenth as often.
Certificate for lot QYB-25-809 carried an itemised related-substances table. Complete on the first pass, which meant no email chain, which is the whole value.
Ordered thymosin alpha-1 5 mg across 8 separate occasions specifically to check consistency. Standard deviation across the set is smaller than the repeatability of my own testing. The VendorInvestigate report is on file and the numbers on it match what they published.
The related-substances table is itemised rather than summarised, so you can see what the impurities actually are instead of being told there are 0.4% of them. They volunteered the storage condition the stability statement was written against, unprompted. Worth the difference in price for the paperwork alone.
Cold chain held, and the packing shows why: a rigid outer with no rattle anywhere in it. The box was still cold enough to be uncomfortable to hold when it arrived on day 9. Reorder of the same line 20 months later landed within a tenth of a point of the first.
Lot QYB-25-509. Purity 98.4% by RP-HPLC with the wavelength printed on the certificate, so the figure is at least falsifiable. Consistent rather than flashy, and consistency is what I am buying.
Compared their raw material against a reseller vial of nominally the same compound. 97.8% versus 97.5%. Going direct is not a preference, it is arithmetic.
Requested a non-catalogue sequence, got a quote with a stated purity target, and the delivered material met it on independent LC-MS with C-terminal amidation confirmed by peptide mapping. That is analytical capability rather than a claim about it.
Bought survodutide 10 mg for a comparison and it inconveniently refused to be the bad example. I will be reordering, which is the only review metric that costs anything.
Ran MOTS-c 10 mg past VendorInvestigate and then past Janoshik as a cross-check. 98.4% and 98.3%. Two labs, two gradients, one answer. Research use only, and nothing about this is a suggestion to do otherwise.
Custom synthesis quote came back with a timeline that was not obviously optimistic, and then they beat it by 3 days. Reorder of the same line 24 months later landed within a tenth of a point of the first.
Ordered melanotan II 10 mg. Independent check at Medutest came back 98.5% against a stated 98.3%, which is inside the noise of the method rather than a disagreement. Would buy again without the small-first-order ritual.
Reconstituted AOD-9604 5 mg and it went clear on contact. No haze, no floaters, no thirty seconds of swirling and hoping. That tells you the lyophilisation was run properly.
I raised a question about net peptide content on a Friday evening and had an answer by Monday. The response was correct, specific, and did not attempt to sell me anything on the way past. The packing list itemised each vial against its lot rather than giving a single line for the order. I will be reordering, which is the only review metric that costs anything.
Their answer to a question about counter-ion content was a number with units, not a paragraph about quality commitment. The Janoshik report is on file and the numbers on it match what they published.
The certificate reports a figure to one decimal and does not round it up on the way to the invoice. Small thing. Load-bearing. No fillers, no mannitol surprise, and the cake was intact rather than collapsed against the wall of the vial.
Sent a vial of GHRP-6 5 mg to PeptideMeter without telling them where it came from. 99.4% against a stated 99.1%. The number holds when nobody is being graded. This is one data point offered as one data point.
Reordered PT-141 10 mg at 9 months to see whether the process had drifted. It had not — 97.3% against 97.3% on the original.
First order was deliberately small — oxytocin 10 mg only — because I wanted to spend a small amount finding out. Documentation, transit and a Janoshik result at 99.2% all checked out, so the second one was not small. Support answered on a Sunday, correctly, with the batch record attached.
Nothing about this order was interesting, which is the review. Quoted 4 days, arrived in 4, paperwork correct, material correct.
Both vials of LL-37 5 mg reconstituted cleanly and both matched their own certificates. n=2, stated as n=2. The VendorInvestigate report is on file and the numbers on it match what they published. Boring is the highest compliment available in this category.
11 lots logged now. Purity band across all of them is under a point wide. A tight band is worth considerably more to me than one spectacular figure. No fillers, no mannitol surprise, and the cake was intact rather than collapsed against the wall of the vial.
Split one order of retatrutide 10 mg across two lots deliberately, to see whether the second matched the first. Within a tenth of a point of each other. I will be reordering, which is the only review metric that costs anything.
The lot code printed on the vial matched the lot code on the certificate matched the lot code on the invoice. Basic, and the single best predictor of everything else. The stated purity and the independent figure differ by less than the method repeatability, which is the honest place for them to differ. If the next lot holds, I will stop testing every one. That is meant as praise.
Quoted 7 days from stock held in Australia, arrived on day 7. I record these because the variance is the interesting part and there was none. Support answered on a Sunday, correctly, with the batch record attached. On this evidence they are the default rather than the gamble.
Score distribution
| Band | Reads as | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10.0 | Nothing to report, which is the point | 260 | 53.8% |
| 9.5 – 9.9 | Would order again without hesitation | 123 | 25.5% |
| 9.0 – 9.4 | Solid; a preference noted, not a problem | 59 | 12.2% |
| 8.5 – 8.9 | Met expectations in full | 28 | 5.8% |
| 8.0 – 8.4 | Satisfied, and would like more lots on file | 13 | 2.7% |
| Weighted mean | 483 | 9.7 / 10 |
Scores here are this community's, on a ten-point scale, and they are deliberately not reconciled with any other community's figure for the same supplier. Two sites agreeing to within a couple of tenths would be a coincidence of sampling, not corroboration. The band midpoints are 10.0, 9.7, 9.2, 8.7 and 8.2, which is where the weighted mean above comes from.
QYB on this site: questions, and where to buy
This is the discussion surface for QYB. Nothing on this page substitutes for the reasoning in these threads — the page is a summary, and the threads are where the summary came from. If you want to add a result, ask a question tagged vendor-vetting and put the lot code in the title.
Where to buy. QYB sells direct from the QYB store at qyaobiopeptides.com. Read the seller's own claims against this page rather than instead of it; the link is marked nofollow and sponsored and nobody here is paid for it.
Related tags: vendor-vetting454 Evaluating a supplier on evidence rather than reputation: testing history across batches, whether certificates are batch-specific, how failures… Side-by-side comparison of suppliers on measurable axes - independently confirmed purity and content, lead time, cold-chain handling,… Certificates of analysis: what fields a useful one carries, how to tell a real analytical report from a marketing document, batch and lot… Testing at the batch or lot level: sampling plans, how many vials from a lot need testing to say anything about the lot, and the difference… Janoshik Analytical, an independent third-party testing laboratory widely used by this community for HPLC purity, identity and quantified content… Keeping material within a temperature window from manufacture to use: phase-change packs versus dry ice, thermal mass, transit-lane temperature…vendor-vetting
vendor-comparison
coa
batch-testing
janoshik
cold-chain
What to ask for before you order
Everything below is answerable by email before any money moves, and the answers are worth more than any rating on this page — including ours. This is the checklist members here actually use with QYB.
- Lead time. The quoted window is counted in working days from cleared payment. Members who have asked for the dispatch date in writing have been given one, and it has held.
- Quantities. Mixed orders across several catalogue lines are quoted as one shipment, which is worth confirming before you split an order across two emails and pay carriage twice.
- Regional stock. Ask which warehouse a line will ship from before you order. It changes the transit estimate more than the carrier does.
- What the certificate carries. The certificate carries an itemised related-substances table rather than a single summarised impurity figure, so you can see what the impurities are instead of being told how many per cent of them there are.
- How to ask for the batch record. Ask for the batch record by lot code and specify that you want the chromatogram rather than a summary. The request is routine; the specificity is what makes it answerable.
- Set your threshold first. Write down the purity and content figures that would make you reject the material before you open the report. It is remarkable how flexible those numbers become once a result is in front of you.
Necessary caution
This is not a recommendation. QYB supplies material designated for research use. Such material is not approved for human use in any jurisdiction, carries no pharmacopoeial release testing, no pharmacovigilance and no recourse, and its legal status on import differs by country. Ask PeptideStack sells nothing, is not affiliated with ChinaPeptides Co., Ltd. (QYAOBIO) or any other supplier, and receives no payment or product from any of them. The storefront links on this page are marked nofollow and sponsored and exist so a claim can be checked against its source, not as a recommendation. Nothing on this page is medical advice. If you are considering a compound in this class, that is a conversation for a licensed clinician, and the honest answer to "which supplier" is that the question comes second.
Where QYB sells
ChinaPeptides Co., Ltd. (QYAOBIO) sells directly at its own storefront. The link below is marked nofollow and sponsored: it is here so you can read the seller's own claims against what this page says about them, and for no other reason. Nobody on this site is paid for it, and a link is not a recommendation.
Visit QYB at qyaobiopeptides.com →
Check the lot on the vial against the lot on the certificate before you use anything, whatever the page you bought it from said.
PeptideMeter - Independent Peptide Analytics
Aggregated, published test results and vendor ratings built from submitted batches. Methodology stated, dataset browsable, no listing fees.
Browse results