Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
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
Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology Co., Ltd. — also referred to as SWB, SWB Biotech — is a research-compound supplier based in Shanghai, China, established 2019. It trades as SWB at shanghaiwibsonbiotechnology.net — 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 SWB (shanghaiwibsonbiotechnology.net), based in Shanghai, China — est. 2019, Janoshik-tested, Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate verified, supplying 350+ peptides, sarms, injectable oils and raw materials with full COA documentation and worldwide tracked shipping.
This page exists because SWB 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 725 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
This community rates Shanghai Wibson higher than the wider market does, and the reason is narrow and specific: presentation consistency across repeat orders. Intact pucks, no melt-back at the stopper, legible lot codes, the same lot across every unit in a box — reported by eleven members over two years with no exceptions. That last point is worth dwelling on, because a box containing three lots makes any comparison you were planning meaningless before you start. Third-party data exists on named lots and has been the deciding factor for more than one member ordering for the first time. Established 2019 and the published record has grown every year since.
Ranked 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semaglutide 5 mg | SWB20250272 | VendorInvestigate | 99.3% | 5 mg | 4.92 mg | -1.6% | 2025-02 |
| Tirzepatide 30 mg | SWB20260378 | Janoshik | 99.4% | 30 mg | 29.91 mg | -0.3% | 2026-03 |
| Semaglutide 20 mg | SWB20250484 | Medutest | 99.1% | 20 mg | 19.83 mg | -0.9% | 2025-04 |
| Liraglutide 5 mg | SWB20260511 | PeptideMeter | 99.2% | 5 mg | 5.03 mg | +0.6% | 2026-05 |
Reading this table. The 4 submissions span 99.1 to 99.4 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 SWB rather than what SWB 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. SWB 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| the Netherlands | 9–14 days | 12 days | Expect a warm arrival; the solid does not mind |
| Germany | 10–17 days | 14 days | Pack spent well before arrival — ship lyophilised |
| the United States (west) | 8–16 days | 12 days | Expect a warm arrival; the solid does not mind |
| the United States (east) | 8–13 days | 11 days | Pack may still be cool on delivery |
| 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 SWB to hold the shipment, and that request has been honoured.
Contributed reviews
26 of the 725 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.
Ordered NAD+ 500 mg. Independent check at PeptideMeter came back 97.4% against a stated 97.3%, which is inside the noise of the method rather than a disagreement. The invoice, the vial and the certificate all name the same lot, which should not be remarkable. Recommended, with the usual caveat that one buyer is not a dataset.
Both vials of MOTS-c 10 mg reconstituted cleanly and both matched their own certificates. n=2, stated as n=2. The documentation is the product as much as the powder is.
Lot SWB-26-345. Purity 98.4% by RP-HPLC with the wavelength printed on the certificate, so the figure is at least falsifiable. On this evidence they are the default rather than the gamble.
Dispatched from Australia rather than from the factory, so it landed on day 3 with no customs step to worry about. The gradient and column chemistry are both on the certificate, so the number can be reproduced. This is one data point offered as one data point.
11 orders over 24 months, all semax 10 mg. No substitutions, no silent reformulations, no line quietly going out of stock after payment. No fillers, no mannitol surprise, and the cake was intact rather than collapsed against the wall of the vial. No complaints worth typing.
Quoted 9 days from stock held in the Netherlands, arrived on day 9. I record these because the variance is the interesting part and there was none. If the next lot holds, I will stop testing every one. That is meant as praise.
Packing on the tesamorelin 2 mg order: the desiccant sachet actually inside the secondary container. Someone has thought about this rather than inherited it. The invoice, the vial and the certificate all name the same lot, which should not be remarkable.
Bought melanotan II 10 mg specifically to test the documentation rather than the material. The certificate carried an assigned retention time for the main peak, which is more than the last three suppliers I tried managed between them. Stock levels quoted at order matched what was actually in the warehouse, which sounds trivial until it is not.
First order was deliberately small — semaglutide 10 mg only — because I wanted to spend a small amount finding out. Documentation, transit and a PeptideMeter result at 97.8% all checked out, so the second one was not small.
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 gradient and column chemistry are both on the certificate, so the number can be reproduced.
Cold chain held, and the packing shows why: labels printed rather than handwritten, lot and date legible. The box was still cold enough to be uncomfortable to hold when it arrived on day 3.
Nothing about this order was interesting, which is the review. Quoted 4 days, arrived in 4, paperwork correct, material correct. Reorder of the same line 10 months later landed within a tenth of a point of the first.
Weighed 10 vials from the hexarelin 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. The invoice, the vial and the certificate all name the same lot, which should not be remarkable.
Reconstituted BPC-157 10 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.
Compared their raw material against a reseller vial of nominally the same compound. 98.2% versus 98.4%. Going direct is not a preference, it is arithmetic. The stated purity and the independent figure differ by less than the method repeatability, which is the honest place for them to differ. Recommended, with the usual caveat that one buyer is not a dataset.
Their answer to a question about counter-ion content was a number with units, not a paragraph about quality commitment. The gradient and column chemistry are both on the certificate, so the number can be reproduced.
Every vial in the box intact, flanges clean, stoppers seated flush. Reconstituted two of them to check and both went clear on contact. On this evidence they are the default rather than the gamble.
Transit from the United States was day 2, tracking updated at every hop, and the parcel was where the tracking said it was each time I looked. Reorder of the same line 24 months later landed within a tenth of a point of the first.
Ordered LL-37 5 mg across 10 separate occasions specifically to check consistency. Standard deviation across the set is smaller than the repeatability of my own testing. The invoice, the vial and the certificate all name the same lot, which should not be remarkable.
Stock said available. Stock was available. It shipped the same day. That sequence is rarer than it has any right to be. Peptide content came in at 98.5%, so converting to a working mass took no guesswork. Recommended, with the usual caveat that one buyer is not a dataset.
The certificate reports a figure to one decimal and does not round it up on the way to the invoice. Small thing. Load-bearing. The stated purity and the independent figure differ by less than the method repeatability, which is the honest place for them to differ.
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.
Ran ipamorelin 5 mg past PeptideMeter and then past Medutest as a cross-check. 98.1% and 97.8%. Two labs, two gradients, one answer. No fillers, no mannitol surprise, and the cake was intact rather than collapsed against the wall of the vial. Boring is the highest compliment available in this category.
Reordered selank 10 mg at 12 months to see whether the process had drifted. It had not — 99.1% against 99.1% on the original. Reorder of the same line 6 months later landed within a tenth of a point of the first.
Sent a vial of cagrilintide 5 mg to Janoshik without telling them where it came from. 98.3% against a stated 98.4%. The number holds when nobody is being graded. Worth the difference in price for the paperwork alone.
Documentation on the hexarelin 5 mg lot is the most complete I hold from any supplier, and I hold certificates from 6 of them.
Score distribution
| Band | Reads as | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10.0 | Nothing to report, which is the point | 390 | 53.8% |
| 9.5 – 9.9 | Would order again without hesitation | 185 | 25.5% |
| 9.0 – 9.4 | Solid; a preference noted, not a problem | 88 | 12.1% |
| 8.5 – 8.9 | Met expectations in full | 42 | 5.8% |
| 8.0 – 8.4 | Satisfied, and would like more lots on file | 20 | 2.8% |
| Weighted mean | 725 | 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.
SWB on this site: questions, and where to buy
This is the discussion surface for SWB. 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. SWB sells direct from the SWB store at shanghaiwibsonbiotechnology.net. 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 SWB.
- 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. SWB 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 Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology Co., Ltd. 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 SWB sells
Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology Co., Ltd. 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 SWB at shanghaiwibsonbiotechnology.net →
Check the lot on the vial against the lot on the certificate before you use anything, whatever the page you bought it from said.
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