How we rate peptides

Overview

Every peptide review follows the same checklist. We look at benefits, risks, and how strong the evidence is for each goal people care about.

We do not test products in a lab. We use published studies and safety reports we can cite. We do not rely on vendor claims. literature. This approach ensures our evaluations are grounded in peer-reviewed research rather than anecdotal claims or marketing materials.

Evidence levels

We label evidence in a simple way so you know how confident to be.

• verified
  Strong evidenceMultiple strong human studies point in the same direction.
• task_alt
  Mixed but promisingSome human evidence exists, but results are mixed or not yet solid.
• help_outline
  Early evidenceMostly animal or lab studies, or very small human studies. We clearly say when it is early.

How scores work

Each peptide gets a score based on a few simple categories.

• How well it seems to work based on studies
• What side effects and risks are known
• How much good research exists
• Which goals the evidence supports
• How clear the data is, including what is missing

Stars reflect how useful a peptide seems for a goal. Confidence reflects how strong the evidence is. If evidence is limited, we say it clearly.

How we review

Here is what we do for every review.

Sources we use

We use public sources you can check yourself, including:

• PubMed for published medical studies
• Cochrane for evidence summaries and meta analyses
• ClinicalTrials.gov for trial listings and results when available
• FDA sources for warnings and safety updates when relevant
• Peer reviewed journals for original studies

We do not use marketing claims as evidence. If strong research is missing, we say so.

Updates

New studies come out all the time. When good new evidence appears, we update the review and the score.

Each page shows when it was last updated. Check back if a peptide has early evidence, since scores can change.