Our Methodology
How we evaluate vendors and assess peptide evidence.
Vendor Scoring System
We evaluate vendors across five categories, each weighted to reflect its importance to consumer safety and value.
| Category | Weight | What We Measure |
|---|---|---|
| Transparency | 20% | Public COAs, named testing labs, batch-specific documentation, ingredient disclosure |
| Testing | 25% | Independent third-party testing, test comprehensiveness, verification accessibility |
| Pricing | 15% | Value relative to market, markup analysis, hidden fees |
| Reputation | 20% | BBB rating, Trustpilot reviews, Reddit presence, independent reviews, company longevity |
| Compliance | 20% | FDA warning letters, legal issues, DSHEA compliance, NDIN status |
Grade Scale
- A (90-100) Exceptional — sets industry standard for quality and transparency
- B (75-89) Good — above average with minor concerns
- C (60-74) Average — meets minimum expectations with notable gaps
- D (40-59) Below average — significant concerns identified
- F (<40) Failing — serious regulatory, quality, or safety issues
Evidence Level Ratings
We rate peptide evidence based on the quality and quantity of human clinical data, not animal studies or vendor claims.
- Well-Established
Multiple large randomized controlled trials, FDA-approved, systematic reviews available. Example: Semaglutide - Moderate Human
Small human trials exist, some published clinical data, but not enough for regulatory approval. Example: GHK-Cu (topical) - Limited Human
Case reports, pilot studies, or fewer than 30 total human subjects studied. Example: TB-500 - Animal Only
Only preclinical (animal or in vitro) data exists. No human trials completed and published. Example: BPC-157, KPV - Expert Analysis
Our assessment based on available evidence, regulatory documents, and industry analysis.
Data Sources
Our research draws exclusively from verifiable, primary sources:
- Scientific literature: PubMed, Google Scholar, preprint servers
- Clinical trials: ClinicalTrials.gov registrations and published results
- Regulatory data: FDA.gov (warning letters, guidance documents, approval records), Federal Register
- Legal records: DOJ press releases, court filings, state pharmacy board records
- Industry data: Patent filings, corporate filings, import/export statistics
- Independent journalism: STAT News, Reuters Health, Bloomberg Law
- Consumer feedback: BBB, Trustpilot, Reddit (community sentiment only, not claims verification)
We never cite: vendor marketing materials, clinic websites, sponsored content, or sources with undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Independence Standards
- We do not accept payment from vendors for reviews or ratings
- We do not participate in vendor affiliate programs
- We disclose any affiliate relationships that do exist (currently: none)
- Editorial decisions are made independently of any revenue considerations
- We contact vendors for comment before publishing critical reviews
Update Policy
Vendor profiles and peptide pages are reviewed quarterly or when significant new information emerges (FDA action, published research, company changes). Each page displays its last review date. If you have information that should update our assessment, contact tips@peptideexaminer.com.
Limitations
Our assessments are based on publicly available information. We cannot verify claims that vendors don't publicly document. A vendor may have excellent quality practices that aren't reflected in their transparency score simply because they don't publish documentation. We evaluate what can be verified, not what may exist behind the scenes.
We also cannot test products ourselves at scale. Our quality assessments rely on publicly available testing data, vendor documentation, and third-party lab reports — not our own laboratory analysis.