Open provider research data16 candidates.
16 candidates.
No invented winner.
Inspect the source, test coverage, evidence method, product breadth, current stage, method limit, and unresolved check behind every candidate in the 2026 provider market scan.
Candidate evidence, not a provider endorsement.A candidate-discovery and evidence-triage dataset, not a provider endorsement, safety certification, or finding about every product or future batch. Test findings remain specific to the cited source, peptide, sample, and date.
Open release
Audit the complete field.
Candidate ledger
Evidence strength and gaps stay together.
Order follows the editorial audit queue. It is not a quality rank. A high source test count can still be outweighed by mixed sample custody, unresolved identity, payment, policy, or current-lot questions.
| Queue | Provider | Market | Stage | Source tests | Peptides | Latest | Evidence class | Method limit | Evidence finding | Required next check | Source checked | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Planet PeptideOpen storefront ↗ | United States | Priority audit | 62 | 9 | 2026-03-20 | Third-party test aggregationThird-party sample profileexpected identity / purity-focused result / sample history / product coverage | Finnrick states that samples may be acquired directly or submitted through its testing programs. Aggregate coverage is not equivalent to a controlled blind provider study or proof of a current lot. | Finnrick reports 62 samples across nine peptides, a 100% expected-identity rate in that dataset, and materially different results by peptide. Semaglutide and ipamorelin were stronger than CJC-1295. | Verify current lot-document access, named business identity, and whether the tested batches match products currently offered. | 2026-07-26 | Finnrick third-party test profile ↗ |
| 02 | Peptide CraftersOpen storefront ↗ | United States | Priority audit | 41 | 7 | 2026-06-01 | Third-party test aggregationThird-party sample profileexpected identity / purity-focused result / sample history / product coverage | Finnrick states that samples may be acquired directly or submitted through its testing programs. Aggregate coverage is not equivalent to a controlled blind provider study or proof of a current lot. | Finnrick lists 27 passes among 41 classifiable tests. The strongest visible signal is semaglutide, while CJC-1295, BPC-157, and several earlier samples were weaker. | Match current lots to lab-hosted identity, quantity, purity, endotoxin, and sterility reports before any product-specific distinction. | 2026-07-26 | Finnrick third-party test profile ↗ |
| 03 | Paramount PeptidesOpen storefront ↗ | United States, California | Priority audit | 65 | 8 | 2026-02-02 | Third-party test aggregationThird-party sample profileexpected identity / purity-focused result / sample history / product coverage | Finnrick states that samples may be acquired directly or submitted through its testing programs. Aggregate coverage is not equivalent to a controlled blind provider study or proof of a current lot. | Finnrick lists 45 passes among 65 classifiable tests. Retatrutide and semaglutide are stronger in the current profile than CJC-1295, BPC-157, and survodutide. | Verify the legal counterparty, current report routes, and whether recent lots preserve the stronger product-specific results. | 2026-07-26 | Finnrick third-party test profile ↗ |
| 04 | Polaris PeptidesOpen storefront ↗ | United States | Priority audit | 99 | 9 | 2026-05-13 | Third-party test aggregationThird-party sample profileexpected identity / purity-focused result / sample history / product coverage | Finnrick states that samples may be acquired directly or submitted through its testing programs. Aggregate coverage is not equivalent to a controlled blind provider study or proof of a current lot. | Finnrick now lists 99 tests across nine peptides and 64 passes among 91 classifiable tests. Tirzepatide is stronger in the current profile, while BPC-157 and CJC-1295 show repeated weaknesses. | Verify exact-lot reports, sample provenance, current business identity, and whether the tested batches match products currently offered. | 2026-07-26 | Finnrick third-party test profile ↗ |
| 05 | Skye PeptidesOpen storefront ↗ | United States, California | Mixed evidence | 75 | 10 | 2026-05-11 | Third-party test aggregationThird-party sample profileexpected identity / purity-focused result / sample history / product coverage | Finnrick states that samples may be acquired directly or submitted through its testing programs. Aggregate coverage is not equivalent to a controlled blind provider study or proof of a current lot. | Finnrick lists 42 passes among 75 classifiable tests. Semaglutide and ipamorelin are stronger in the current profile, while BPC-157 and CJC-1295 show repeated misses. | Audit current batches by peptide and keep any conclusion product-specific. | 2026-07-26 | Finnrick third-party test profile ↗ |
| 06 | Peptide SciencesOpen storefront ↗ | United States | Mixed evidence | 131 | 10 | 2026-07-01 | Third-party test aggregationThird-party sample profileexpected identity / purity-focused result / sample history / product coverage | Finnrick states that samples may be acquired directly or submitted through its testing programs. Aggregate coverage is not equivalent to a controlled blind provider study or proof of a current lot. | Finnrick now lists 79 passes among 131 classifiable tests. GHK-Cu, semaglutide, PT-141, and ipamorelin are stronger in the current profile, while CJC-1295 and retatrutide include serious identity or purity failures. | Confirm current operating status, distinguish authentic from disputed samples, and audit each peptide separately. | 2026-07-26 | Finnrick third-party test profile ↗ |
| 07 | Reta-PeptideOpen storefront ↗ | US-facing, counterparty review pending | Identity hold | 238 | 13 | 2026-07-20 | Third-party test aggregationThird-party test directoryexpected identity / purity-focused result / sample history / product coverage | Finnrick states that samples may be acquired directly or submitted through its testing programs. Aggregate coverage is not equivalent to a controlled blind provider study or proof of a current lot. | Finnrick now shows 238 tests across thirteen peptides, but its current identity report disputes parts of the storefront's public manufacturer story. Broad analytical coverage cannot resolve the legal counterparty or fulfillment route. | Resolve the legal counterparty, fulfillment origin, payment protection, and current lot mapping. | 2026-07-26 | Finnrick vendor directory ↗ |
| 08 | Aavant ResearchOpen storefront ↗ | US-facing, counterparty review pending | Identity hold | 18 | 2 | 2026-05-20 | Third-party test aggregationThird-party sample profileexpected identity / purity-focused result / sample history / product coverage | Finnrick states that samples may be acquired directly or submitted through its testing programs. Aggregate coverage is not equivalent to a controlled blind provider study or proof of a current lot. | All 18 classifiable tests in the cited Finnrick profile passed its purity-focus standard, but coverage is limited to two peptides and the profile flags unresolved counterparty and payment-rail questions. | Resolve the named business counterparty, storefront authenticity, and reversible payment options. | 2026-07-26 | Finnrick third-party test profile ↗ |
| 09 | Orbitrex PeptidesOpen storefront ↗ | US-facing, domain review pending | Identity hold | 30 | 4 | 2026-07-17 | Third-party test aggregationThird-party test directoryexpected identity / purity-focused result / sample history / product coverage | Finnrick states that samples may be acquired directly or submitted through its testing programs. Aggregate coverage is not equivalent to a controlled blind provider study or proof of a current lot. | Finnrick now lists 30 tests across four peptides, including two July PT-141 results. Multiple similarly branded domains and unresolved counterparty details still make exact storefront verification essential. | Identify the exact tested storefront, legal counterparty, official domain, and report verification route. | 2026-07-26 | Finnrick vendor directory ↗ |
| 10 | Prime Lab PeptidesOpen storefront ↗ | United States | Evidence thin | 3 | 2 | Not stated | Third-party test aggregationThird-party test directoryexpected identity / purity-focused result / sample history / product coverage | Finnrick states that samples may be acquired directly or submitted through its testing programs. Aggregate coverage is not equivalent to a controlled blind provider study or proof of a current lot. | The seller publishes COA and policy claims and has a large review footprint, but the cited independent profile says three samples across two products are not enough to issue a rating. | Add multi-batch independent testing across at least five peptides and audit review content separately from laboratory evidence. | 2026-07-26 | Finnrick unrated vendor profile ↗ |
| 11 | RIVN PeptidesOpen storefront ↗ | United States, Tennessee | Evidence thin | Unreconciled | Unreconciled | Not stated | Seller-commissioned disclosureSeller testing disclosureseller-posted laboratory route / business identity / contact details | The seller selects and publishes the reports. This is useful disclosure, but it is not blind market sampling or independent custody evidence. | The storefront publishes a named laboratory, physical address, phone number, and COA route. Those are useful transparency signals, but seller-commissioned reports are not the same as blind independent market sampling. | Find or commission independent multi-batch samples and verify current Freedom Diagnostics lookup codes. | 2026-07-26 | Official testing page ↗ |
| 12 | VIAL PeptidesOpen storefront ↗ | United States | Evidence thin | 3 | 3 | 2026-03-18 | Independent blind samplingIndependent blind testing roundblind sample / purity / quantity / endotoxin | A small blind testing round can describe only the sampled products, batches, and dates. It cannot establish provider-wide or future-lot quality. | Pepper Review reports three blind samples that passed its purity, content, and endotoxin checks. The result is promising but far too small and recent for an overall provider award. | Repeat blind testing across additional batches, peptides, and dates while verifying business identity and policies. | 2026-07-26 | Pepper Review March 2026 testing round ↗ |
| 13 | Blue Ridge PeptidesOpen storefront ↗ | United States, Virginia | Not qualified | 1 | 1 | 2026-03-20 | Independent blind samplingIndependent blind testing roundblind sample / purity / quantity / endotoxin | A small blind testing round can describe only the sampled products, batches, and dates. It cannot establish provider-wide or future-lot quality. | The seller publishes a broad testing library, but Pepper Review's cited blind sample failed at 96.1% purity and 8% underfill. One result cannot describe the whole catalog, but it prevents an evidence-based top-provider claim today. | Repeat blind tests across several current lots and reconcile the result with seller-posted reports. | 2026-07-26 | Pepper Review March 2026 testing round ↗ |
| 14 | Limitless Life NootropicsOpen storefront ↗ | United States, Florida | Not qualified | 22 | 4 | 2025-09-25 | Third-party test aggregationThird-party sample profileexpected identity / purity-focused result / sample history / product coverage | Finnrick states that samples may be acquired directly or submitted through its testing programs. Aggregate coverage is not equivalent to a controlled blind provider study or proof of a current lot. | Finnrick lists seven passes and fifteen failures among 22 classifiable tests, with repeated misses in CJC-1295 and ipamorelin. | Require newer independent multi-batch evidence showing that the repeated failures have been corrected. | 2026-07-26 | Finnrick third-party test profile ↗ |
| 15 | Prime PeptidesOpen storefront ↗ | United States | Not qualified | 3 | 1 | 2025-07-03 | Third-party test aggregationThird-party sample profileexpected identity / purity-focused result / sample history / product coverage | Finnrick states that samples may be acquired directly or submitted through its testing programs. Aggregate coverage is not equivalent to a controlled blind provider study or proof of a current lot. | The cited CJC-1295 record contains one passing sample and two samples in which the expected compound was not identified. That directly conflicts with treating seller-hosted transparency as proof of overall quality. | Require current independent testing across the catalog and resolve the failed CJC-1295 batch history. | 2026-07-26 | Finnrick CJC-1295 profile ↗ |
| 16 | Biotech PeptidesOpen storefront ↗ | United States | Evidence thin | 0 | 0 | Not stated | Third-party test aggregationThird-party test directoryexpected identity / purity-focused result / sample history / product coverage | Finnrick states that samples may be acquired directly or submitted through its testing programs. Aggregate coverage is not equivalent to a controlled blind provider study or proof of a current lot. | The cited independent directory is aware of the provider but lists no tested products. Seller-hosted chromatograms and mass-spectrometry images cannot substitute for independent sampling. | Obtain independent identity, quantity, and purity testing across multiple current batches. | 2026-07-26 | Finnrick unrated vendor profile ↗ |
Qualification gate
All six before an overall award.
Missing evidence stays visible. Review volume and seller-hosted COAs cannot replace independent sample evidence.
- gate_01
- At least 20 independently sourced tests across five or more peptides
- gate_02
- No unresolved expected-identity failure in a currently offered lot
- gate_03
- Public lot matching with product, nominal quantity, test date, laboratory, and verification route
- gate_04
- A named business counterparty, stable official domain, contact route, and complete commercial policies
- gate_05
- A research-use boundary that does not rely on customer testimonials or human outcome claims
- gate_06
- A current correction process and a documented response to material test failures
Data dictionary
Every field carries a limit.
Counts are reported from the cited source and remain specific to its coverage and methodology.
- candidate_order
- Editorial audit queue position, not a quality rank, recommendation, safety verdict, or provider-wide score.
- stage
- Editorial next-step classification, not a rank, recommendation, safety verdict, or provider-wide quality score.
- independent_tests
- Legacy field name for the test count visible in the cited evidence source. It measures coverage, not uniform blind sampling, quality, or current-lot proof. Blank means no reconciled provider-level count was available.
- tested_peptides
- Number of distinct peptide products reported by the cited source. Coverage does not establish quality outside those products and samples.
- latest_test
- Latest test date visible in the cited source when a provider-level date was available.
- source_publisher
- Named publisher of the evidence source used for the row.
- source_independence
- Whether the row uses third-party test aggregation, a blind independent sample round, or seller-commissioned disclosure. These categories must not be treated as equivalent.
- evidence_type
- The source format used for the row, such as a third-party sample profile, blind testing round, test directory, or seller testing disclosure.
- evidence_dimensions
- Dimensions visibly covered by the cited source. A listed dimension does not mean every sample passed it or that unlisted quality attributes were tested.
- method_limit
- The most important reason the cited evidence cannot support a provider-wide or future-lot conclusion.
- finding
- Source-bounded editorial summary that preserves product-level variation and unresolved limitations.
- next_check
- Evidence task required before a broader qualification decision can be considered.
- source_url
- Independent testing profile or official transparency page supporting the current row.
- storefront_url
- Public storefront used for identity and policy reconciliation. Inclusion is not an endorsement.
- source_checked
- Date Peptide Local last re-opened the cited evidence route and reconciled the visible row-level fields.
Read before choosing
Follow the product and lot evidence.
A provider can show strong results for one peptide and weak results for another. Use this dataset to identify what to verify next, then inspect the current product, lot, laboratory, custody, and report route.
Read the market findings →Read the qualification standard →Submit a sourced correction →