Understand the source comparison
Hexarelin History: Peptide vs Analog Comparison
The evolution of hexarelin research produced multiple analogs designed to separate GHS-R activity from CD36 binding. This table summarizes the key compounds and their receptor profiles as established in peer-reviewed studies between 2004 and 2024. Hexarelin GH
No winner is assigned.
This page preserves a source comparison for education. It does not add a rating, recommendation or clinical judgment.
- The evolution of hexarelin research produced multiple analogs designed to separate GHS-R activity from CD36 binding. This table summarizes the key compounds and their receptor profiles as established in peer-reviewed studies between 2004 and 2024.
- Hexarelin
- GHS-R + CD36 (dual)
- 100% (reference)
- High (38% infarct reduction in rat MI model)
- Moderate (18% incidence at 2 mcg/kg twice daily)
- Preclinical research tool
- EP80317
- CD36-selective
- <5% (minimal GHS-R binding)
- High (comparable to hexarelin in ischemia models)
- None observed
- Discontinued after Phase I
- GHRP-6
- GHS-R-selective
- ~50%
- Minimal (no CD36 binding)
- Low
- Available as research peptide
- Hexarelin (Research Grade)
- GHS-R + CD36
- 100%
- High
- Relevant for chronic dosing studies
- Synthesized by Real Peptides
- JMV2894
- <2%
- Moderate (30% infarct reduction)
- Active preclinical development
- Ipamorelin
- ~60%
- Minimal
- Widely used in metabolic research
- Bottom Line: CD36-selective analogs retain hexarelin's cardioprotective and neuroprotective mechanisms without GHS-R-mediated cortisol elevation, but dual-target hexarelin remains the most studied compound for understanding CD36 signaling due to its two-decade research history and well-characterized pharmacokinetics.