Vendor Directory

Polaris runs COAs per product rather than linking to a single page — each listing has its own Chromate Analytics or Janoshik report, and nine products have Finnrick endotoxin test results on top of that. Purity data we've reviewed averages 99.4% across eleven tested peptides with no failures. Access to the COA page itself requires a free account login, which is an extra step but not unusual for a members-model vendor. Ownership is publicly disclosed. This is one of the most comprehensively documented vendors in our database.

Last reviewed: —

Bulk Peptide Supply publicly discloses ownership, lists a physical address, and covers seven products through Finnrick-verified third-party testing — a cleaner transparency profile than most vendors at this score level. Average purity is 99.4% across seven tests. The gaps are minor: no published contact information, and test coverage is still relatively thin for a catalog of this size. A reliable baseline with room to grow.

Last reviewed: —

EZ Peptides publishes third-party lab results backed by Finnrick verification across six tested products, and the company lists a physical US address. Most purity results are solid, but one retatrutide batch came back at 93.2% — below the 95% threshold where we start flagging product quality. Whether that's a one-time outlier or a sign of inconsistency requires more data points. No named ownership. The testing infrastructure is real; we'd want to see that retatrutide result addressed before ranking this higher.

Last reviewed: —

Orbitrex operates from Iceland, which means purchases fall outside US consumer protection frameworks — worth knowing before you order. On the chemistry side, the record is nearly spotless: 99.89% average purity across seven Finnrick-verified tests, with batch-specific COAs and methodology documentation. A physical address is on file but there's no published contact information. The jurisdiction risk is real; the testing evidence isn't.

Last reviewed: —

NextechLabs has strong testing numbers — 99.69% average across seven Finnrick-verified products — but no publicly accessible COA archive. We couldn't locate an active COA page, which means the documentation exists in Finnrick's system but isn't independently browsable. No contact information, no ownership disclosure. The purity record is clean; the transparency infrastructure around it is thin. We'd want a working COA page before ranking this higher.

Last reviewed: —

Aavant Research posts some of the cleanest purity numbers in our dataset — 99.87% average across seven Finnrick-verified tests, including multiple tirzepatide and retatrutide runs. Contact information is public; no physical address or ownership disclosure. The testing record alone would rank them higher if the company identity were clearer. As it stands, you're buying from a well-tested vendor whose principals are unknown.

Last reviewed: —

Omegamino meets the basic requirements: third-party testing, batch numbers, methodology disclosed. Purity averages 99.8% across the four products we have data for, which is solid. But four Finnrick-verified tests is the minimum we'd accept, and there's no contact information, no physical address, and no ownership disclosure. The testing data is good; the company identity is a blank. Sufficient for cautious buyers, not a vendor we'd recommend over better-documented alternatives.

Last reviewed: —

Two CJC-1295 batches came back at 88.99% and 85.65% purity — the lowest results in our dataset for any vendor in this group. Both failures were from the same testing date, which suggests a bad batch rather than a systematic problem, but neither has been publicly acknowledged. Other tested products look clean. No COA page is publicly accessible, no contact information, and no address or ownership on file. The CJC-1295 results need an explanation before this vendor earns a stronger recommendation.

Last reviewed: —

RUO Science has per-product COA pages with real purity data — BPC-157 at 99.12% and Tirzepatide at 99.74% from batch-specific documents. Testing methodology is described (HPLC, mass spec, endotoxin, sterility, heavy metals). The critical gap: no third-party lab is named anywhere on the site. Without knowing which lab performed the testing, the COAs cannot be independently verified. No business address or ownership disclosure. Score is limited by the unnamed lab — if they publish the lab name, this would climb to the Watchlist range. For now: COAs look real, but the source is unverifiable.

Last reviewed: —

Simple Peptide has seven Finnrick-verified tests, an active COA page, contact info, a physical address, and lab methodology disclosed — a cleaner checklist than most vendors near this score. The gap is purity data: we haven't extracted raw numbers from their COA archive yet, so the score reflects Finnrick's independent testing footprint rather than confirmed purity percentages. No ownership disclosure.

Last reviewed: —

Paramount has more Finnrick endotoxin tests than most vendors above it in the rankings — eight total — and both a physical address and contact information are listed. The problem is purity data: we have none in our database. Whether that's a gap in our scraping or a sign that HPLC results aren't publicly available, we can't independently confirm product purity. No ownership disclosure. The infrastructure is there; the chemistry documentation needs to catch up.

Last reviewed: —

Chromate Analytics COAs, five tests averaging 99.4% purity. Ownership is disclosed and a physical address is on file. Iceland-based operation (.is domain) — no US consumer protection recourse. No contact information published. The testing data is solid; the jurisdiction and missing contact info are the flags.

Last reviewed: —

Three different named third-party labs — ILS Laboratories, Kovera Labs, and Freedom Diagnostics — across six tests averaging 99.7% purity. A physical address is on file. No contact info or ownership disclosure. The lab diversification is a genuine differentiator; most vendors this size pick one lab and stick with it.

Last reviewed: —

Third-party testing through Kovera Labs and Freedom Diagnostics — two named labs, which is more lab diversification than most vendors at this score level. Three tests averaging 99.7% purity. Contact info is public; no physical address or ownership. The sample is thin for a full catalog recommendation but the existing results are clean.

Last reviewed: —

Loti Labs is one of the more transparent operators in this space — ownership disclosed, contact info public, address on file, Finnrick-verified. That makes the CJC-1295 results harder to explain: two separate batches came back below 62% purity. At those levels the product is mostly something else. Their other tested peptides look clean. Until Loti addresses those CJC-1295 results publicly, we can't recommend them for that peptide specifically.

Last reviewed: —

Peptidology operates out of Scottsdale, AZ and runs third-party testing through an ISO-17025 accredited lab. Their COA library has 426 documents on file, all batch-specific. Purity average across seven tested products is 99.5% with no failures. Seven Finnrick-verified tests add an independent layer of confirmation. Ownership isn't disclosed, which is the only transparency gap in an otherwise strong profile. One of the better-documented vendors in this space.

Last reviewed: —

Eight Finnrick-verified tests and an active COA page, but the operator is almost entirely anonymous — no contact info, no address, no ownership disclosure. The Finnrick coverage is meaningful for confirming a lab testing relationship exists, but without purity data in our database we can't confirm the actual numbers. Worth watching as more data surfaces.

Last reviewed: —

Ascension's COA page sits behind an age gate, but the documentation inside is thorough. Testing is handled by MZ Biolabs in Tucson, AZ — a named third-party lab with HPLC methodology. We reviewed 50 test results covering a wide catalog, averaging 99.6% purity. No physical address or ownership disclosure. A strong testing record from a vendor that's deliberately hard to browse; worth the extra step to verify.

Last reviewed: —

Seven Finnrick-verified tests and an active COA page. Contact info is public. No physical address or ownership disclosure. We don't have purity data in our database from their COA archive, so the score is driven by Finnrick footprint rather than confirmed percentages. The infrastructure is there; the documentation needs to be more publicly accessible.

Last reviewed: —

Ownership is disclosed, contact info is public, and Finnrick-verified testing backs the lab transparency claim. No publicly accessible COA page at the time of review, which is a gap — COA documentation should be independently browsable. No physical address on file. Sufficient identity transparency for the score, but the missing COA archive limits how much we can confirm independently.

Last reviewed: —

Ten Finnrick-verified tests. No company identity disclosed — no contact info, no address, no ownership. COA page exists but we have no purity data extracted from it. Free shipping on all orders. The Finnrick coverage is real, but the operator is completely anonymous. Worth watching, not ready to recommend.

Last reviewed: —

Seventy-five Finnrick-verified tests across 10 compounds — one of the highest testing footprints we track. Results are mixed: GLP-1 peptides (Semaglutide, Tirzepatide, Retatrutide) score A Great, but BPC-157 — their most popular product — rates E Bad with a minimum score of 2.6/10 across 12 tests. Ipamorelin and CJC-1295 rate B and C respectively. Zero company identity: no contact info, no address, no ownership disclosure, no lab named on-site. High testing footprint, notable quality concerns on core healing peptides, no company identity whatsoever.

Last reviewed: —

Ownership and contact info are both public, and the COA page is active. No Finnrick testing and no purity data in our database. The company identity is solid for this tier; the chemistry documentation isn't comprehensive enough to verify product quality independently.

Last reviewed: —

Contact info, a physical address, and lab disclosure are all confirmed — one of the more complete identity profiles at this score level. COA page is active. No Finnrick testing, and we have no purity data in our database. Good baseline legitimacy, but without confirmed purity numbers the chemistry side is unverified.

Last reviewed: —

Two CJC-1295 batches tested below 58% purity — not borderline results, these are failures. A product at 57% purity is mostly not what it's labeled. Other tested peptides look cleaner. Contact info is public, but no physical address or ownership. Do not buy CJC-1295 from Swiss Chems; the rest of the catalog requires more data before recommending.

Last reviewed: —

Physical address and ownership both disclosed — more accountability than most vendors near this score. COA page is active. No Finnrick testing, no purity data in our database. Pricing runs at the high end of the market. The identity checks out; the testing record needs work to justify the price premium.

Last reviewed: —

Seven Finnrick-verified tests suggest a real lab testing relationship exists. The COA page was inaccessible at review time — Cloudflare blocking — so we can't confirm what's there. No contact info, no address, no ownership. One of the larger catalogs in this space; the anonymity is a significant concern given the scale of the operation.

Last reviewed: —

COAs are hosted on SwiftCS (nexaph.coa.swiftcs.ai), a third-party COA verification platform — an unusual approach but a real one. Ten Finnrick-verified tests. No address, no ownership, and no lab named on the vendor's own site. Above-market pricing. The Finnrick coverage is the strongest signal here; everything else about the company identity is absent.

Last reviewed: —

True Research Labs has a business address (Sheridan, WY), a working COA page, and claims independent third-party testing with a ≥99% purity standard. However, no testing lab is named, no batch numbers appear on the COA overview, and no purity percentages are accessible without navigating individual product pages. No ownership disclosure. A newer vendor with the infrastructure started but the documentation not yet fully public. Not enough verifiable data for a recommendation; watch for improvements to their COA transparency.

Last reviewed: —

Certified Pep uses Vanguard Laboratory — ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited, with named testing for purity, endotoxins, heavy metals, and bacteria. That's one of the most specific lab disclosures in this tier. Site is Cloudflare-protected so products and pricing couldn't be directly verified; score reflects the transparency record rather than a full catalog review. If pricing and product breadth are competitive, this vendor would score in the 45–60 range once we can access the full data. The lab disclosure alone puts them above most vendors at a similar overall score.

Last reviewed: —

Perfect Peptides advertises third-party lab testing and COAs but no testing lab is publicly named in any accessible source. The site is Cloudflare-protected and could not be directly scraped. Score of 5 reflects near-zero verifiable data — not a verdict on actual product quality. Once site access is possible, this will be updated. Do not treat the low score as confirmation of poor quality; it reflects a research gap, not a documented failure.

Last reviewed: —

Third-party lab testing with contact info and a physical address on file. COA page is active. No Finnrick testing. The lab verification is real but not batch-specific — meaning the same COA applies to multiple production runs, which limits how precisely you can trace what you're getting. A legitimate vendor with documentation that needs to go one level deeper.

Last reviewed: —

Cernum Biosciences lists certificates of analysis on their website, but those COAs are issued by their own internal "Lab Research Department" — not an independent third-party lab. Every product on the site carries the identical batch number (201-139-35496), which means their batch tracking is a template, not a real audit trail. A 2026 press release placed on USA Today's paid wire service claims "independent third-party verification" and "batch-level traceability" — both directly contradicted by the actual COA documents. Cernum is a newer vendor with no community track record. Until genuine third-party lab results appear, we recommend looking elsewhere.

Last reviewed: —

Licensed Peptides has a confirmed physical address (Boca Raton, FL), a phone number, and describes a 6-point verification process (HPLC, mass spec, endotoxin, sterility checks). Lot numbers appear on purity reports. The problem: no third-party testing lab is ever named — the purity reports are branded as 'Licensed Peptides Reports,' which means we can't confirm the testing was done by an independent party. The product catalog is also sold exclusively in 10-vial packs, which inflates apparent pricing relative to per-vial vendors. Good operational transparency, weak lab independence. Score will rise significantly if they publish the lab name.

Last reviewed: —

Internal testing only — no named third-party lab. Based in Iceland (felixchem.is). Contact info is public and pricing is at the low end of the market. Testing cannot be independently verified. Worth considering only if cost is the primary constraint and you understand the documentation limits.

Last reviewed: —

No COA page and no lab testing documentation of any kind. Ownership is disclosed. There's not enough evidence to evaluate product quality — we can verify who runs it but not what they're selling. Not recommended until testing documentation appears.

Last reviewed: —

No COA page, no lab testing documentation. Contact info is public. Payments are PayPal-only, which limits transaction protection compared to credit card purchases. Not enough evidence to evaluate product quality. Not recommended without third-party testing.

Last reviewed: —

Institutional-access-only catalog — products are not publicly purchasable at this time. Listed for completeness. No public documentation available to evaluate.

Last reviewed: —

No COA page, no lab testing, no physical address. Claims to offer research-grade peptides but provides no independent verification. Not recommended.

Last reviewed: —

COA page exists, and a physical address is on file. No third-party lab verification — internal testing only. No Finnrick testing. Without independent confirmation, the COA documents cannot be treated as reliable quality evidence.

Last reviewed: —

No COA, no lab testing of any kind, no contact info, no address, no ownership disclosure. One of the least-documented vendors in our database. We have no basis for evaluating product quality. Avoid.

Last reviewed: —

No documentation of any kind: no COA, no lab testing, no contact info, no address, no ownership. Lowest-scored vendor in our database. Avoid.

Last reviewed: —

Last reviewed: —

Maxx Research Supply (maxxresearchsupply.com) could not be accessed due to Cloudflare protection, is not indexed in public search, and has no presence in third-party review databases. No products, no prices, and no documentation of any kind are verifiable. Score of 5 reflects no data, not confirmed problems. We recommend waiting for more information before using this vendor.

Last reviewed: —

Last reviewed: —