PeptideTrust started from a simple frustration: in the research-peptide market, "third-party tested" is printed on almost every homepage, yet the actual certificate is often missing, generic, undated, or impossible to verify. We built a scorecard to replace that marketing phrase with something checkable.
What we do
We track vendors on 10 weighted, evidence-linked criteria that measure one thing: documentary transparency. Every score links to the exact page or document we checked, on the date we checked it. We publish the low scores and the awkward findings — including for vendors we earn commission from.
Who writes this
Marcus Vela is PeptideTrust's lead analyst and editor. His background is in analytical chemistry and quality-assurance auditing, where a "certificate" is only as good as the batch record and the lab behind it. He built the PeptideTrust rubric to apply that same evidentiary standard — named lab, batch traceability, source verification, method transparency — to a market that rarely faces it.
Every vendor page is compiled from primary sources: the vendor's own CoA pages and PDFs, the independent labs' verification portals (Janoshik, MZ Biolabs, TrustPointe, Liquilabs, MDx and others), and, where relevant, public regulatory records such as FDA warning letters. Where a claim cannot be verified, we say so rather than guess.
What we are not
We are not a lab, a doctor, or a shop. We do not sell peptides, we do not test them, and nothing on this site is medical advice or a recommendation to buy or use any substance. A transparency score reflects how well a vendor documents its testing — not the purity, sterility, or safety of anything in a vial.
Corrections
Vendors change their sites constantly — new CoAs appear, verification portals move, brands rebrand. If a finding is out of date or wrong, we want to fix it. Corrections are dated on the relevant page when we re-verify.