Understand the source comparison
Comparison: SLU-PP-332 Stability vs Other Research Peptides
SLU-PP-332 12–24 28 Oxidation, hydrolysis Moderate. Amber vial recommended Stability matches BPC-157 and TB-500; more vulnerable than insulin analogs but significantly more stable than growth hormone peptides BPC-157 12–18 30 Hydrolysis, aggregation Low Compar
No winner is assigned.
This page preserves a source comparison for education. It does not add a rating, recommendation or clinical judgment.
- SLU-PP-332
- 12–24
- 28
- Oxidation, hydrolysis
- Moderate. Amber vial recommended
- Stability matches BPC-157 and TB-500; more vulnerable than insulin analogs but significantly more stable than growth hormone peptides
- BPC-157
- 12–18
- 30
- Hydrolysis, aggregation
- Low
- Comparable stability; slightly less oxidation-prone due to fewer methionine residues
- TB-500 (Thymosin Beta-4)
- 18–24
- 28–35
- Oxidation
- Moderate
- Very similar degradation profile; both are acetylated peptides with comparable molecular weight
- CJC-1295
- 24–36
- 35–42
- Hydrolysis
- More stable due to DAC modification; longer half-life in solution
- Semaglutide (GLP-1 agonist)
- 24–30
- Aggregation, oxidation
- High. Degraded rapidly by UV
- Pharmaceutical-grade formulation adds stabilisers; raw peptide stability similar to SLU-PP-332
- IGF-1 LR3
- 6–12
- 14–21
- High
- Less stable than SLU-PP-332; shorter amino acid chain more prone to clumping