Review Methodology

Important Disclosure: We Are Not a Testing Lab

BPC 157 Reviews is a research-and-review site, not a third-party analytical chemistry lab. We do not run independent HPLC, mass spectrometry, or any other purity testing on the products we cover. Older copy on this site has occasionally been ambiguous on this point, and we are correcting that here — plainly and on the record.

What we actually do is described in the next section.

What Our Reviews Are Built On

1. Vendor-published COAs. Each vendor publishes (or claims to publish) a Certificate of Analysis from a third-party lab for each batch. We read these COAs, note the lab name, the test methods, the batch number, the report date, and any flagged impurities. We assess whether the COA is current, lab-issued (not vendor-generated), and matches the product label.
2. Customer reports. We read aggregated customer feedback from Reddit (r/Peptides, r/Nootropics, r/Peptides_for_Sale’s archive), Trustpilot where present, the BBB profile if applicable, and bodybuilding/biohacker forums. We weight verified-purchase reports more heavily than unverified posts.
3. Public business records. We check whether the vendor is a registered business, has a verifiable address (not just a P.O. box), responds to support enquiries, and ships from a jurisdiction with credible quality controls.
4. Pricing and availability. We track pricing per milligram and per microgram across vendors at the time of review and on each quarterly refresh.
5. Regulatory positioning. We note whether each vendor markets the product as “research use only” (the standard — and legally appropriate — framing) or makes implicit human-use claims.

Why We Don’t Run Independent HPLC (Yet)

Independent third-party purity testing on a single peptide vial typically costs between $150 and $400 per sample at the labs we have spoken to (e.g., Janoshik Analytical, Simec). For a 10-vendor comparison set tested across two purchase occasions to detect batch variance, that runs $3,000–$8,000 per testing cycle, and the result is only meaningful for the specific vials we tested. We are working toward funding a programme like this, and will update this page when it ships. Until then, we say so plainly.

Editor Scoring Rubric

Each review carries an editor score (0–10) built from four component scores, each weighted equally:

• Purity transparency (25%). Does the vendor publish a real lab-issued COA? Is the COA current? Does the test method match what the product claims?
• Value (25%). Price per microgram of the active peptide, compared to the median across vendors.
• Vendor reliability (25%). Customer-reported shipping reliability, returns handling, support responsiveness, longevity of the business.
• Form factor and bioavailability (25%). Capsule, injectable, nasal spray, sublingual, or topical — and how that interacts with what the published BPC-157 literature actually supports.

Component scores are public (you can see them on every review page). The editor score is the average, rounded to one decimal.

What the Editor Score Is and Isn’t

It is one writer’s synthesis of the publicly available evidence about a vendor at the time of review. It is not a clinical recommendation, not a guarantee of purity, and not a verdict that the product is safe for human use. Treat the score as a directional ranking among research-use peptide vendors, not as health advice.

YMYL Caveat

BPC-157 is an unapproved research peptide. Nothing on this site is medical advice. If you are considering BPC-157 for any health reason, consult a licensed clinician. See our full Disclaimer.