Understand the source comparison
DSIP Real vs Fake: Supplier Comparison
Accredited research supplier (Real Peptides) Lyophilised white powder, vacuum-sealed glass vial Third-party COAs with lab name, accreditation number, traceable batch ID HPLC ≥98% + mass spectrometry confirmation of 848.81 m/z molecular weight Sterile bacterios
No winner is assigned.
This page preserves a source comparison for education. It does not add a rating, recommendation or clinical judgment.
- Accredited research supplier (Real Peptides)
- Lyophilised white powder, vacuum-sealed glass vial
- Third-party COAs with lab name, accreditation number, traceable batch ID
- HPLC ≥98% + mass spectrometry confirmation of 848.81 m/z molecular weight
- Sterile bacteriostatic water, 2–8°C storage post-reconstitution, 7–10 day use window
- Full traceability, meets ISO/IEC 17025 standards, suitable for publication-grade research
- Generic peptide vendor (marketplace aggregator)
- Lyophilised powder, inconsistent vial quality
- In-house COAs or PDFs with no independent lab verification
- HPLC only, purity ranges 85–95%, no MS confirmation
- Generic mixing instructions, no sterility guarantees
- High contamination risk, unsuitable for controlled studies
- Pre-mixed liquid supplier
- Aqueous solution in multi-dose vials
- No COA or vague 'sterility tested' claims
- No purity data, no batch-specific testing
- Already mixed, ambient shipping temperatures
- Peptide degradation already in progress, research validity compromised
- Underground research chemical source
- Powder or liquid, opaque packaging
- No documentation or fabricated COAs with fake lab names
- No verifiable testing, purity unknown
- No reconstitution guidance provided
- Likely counterfeit or heavily contaminated, legal and ethical risks