Editorial Standards
Rating Methodology
How The Peptorial Brief evaluates and scores research-use-only companies. Ratings are editorial assessments based on publicly available information at the time of review.
The Peptorial Brief evaluates RUO companies on the basis of what researchers can actually verify — not on marketing claims, brand recognition, or pricing alone.
Our scoring system weights documentation and transparency heavily because these are the factors that determine whether a researcher can make an informed assessment of a compound's quality. A company can have excellent pricing and weak documentation. A company can have strong name recognition but limited transparency. The rating reflects the evidence, not the reputation.
Where information cannot be verified from publicly available sources, we document it as NOT FOUND, UNCLEAR, or COMPANY-REPORTED rather than inferring an answer. That uncertainty is itself part of the assessment.
Scoring Criteria
25%
Testing & Analytical Documentation
The depth and completeness of testing documentation. This criterion evaluates whether the company provides results beyond a headline purity figure — including identity testing, net peptide content, endotoxin, sterility, and TFA content where applicable. A company that documents multiple assays per batch scores higher than one that provides only a single HPLC purity result.
What we look for
- HPLC purity analysis
- Identity testing (LC-MS or equivalent)
- Net peptide content documentation
- Endotoxin testing
- Sterility testing
- TFA content (where applicable)
- Testing date and batch number on certificates
20%
COA Accessibility
How easily a researcher can locate and examine the Certificate of Analysis for a specific product. A COA that exists but is difficult to find provides less practical value than one that is directly accessible from the product page. This criterion also evaluates the clarity and completeness of the certificate itself.
What we look for
- COA accessible from product page without friction
- Clear presentation of results
- Readable format that does not require specialist interpretation
- Consistent availability across the catalog
20%
Batch Traceability
The ability to match a specific lot number to a specific Certificate of Analysis from a specific testing laboratory. Lot-to-COA traceability is the mechanism that allows a researcher to confirm that the certificate they are reviewing corresponds to the actual batch they received — not a representative sample from a different production run.
What we look for
- Lot number on the certificate
- Lot number matches the product received
- Certificate identifies the specific testing laboratory
- Testing date documented
15%
Transparency
The degree to which the company is open about its manufacturing, testing, and business practices. This includes identifying the third-party laboratories conducting testing, being clear about what is and is not tested, and not overstating the scope of quality claims.
What we look for
- Named third-party testing laboratory
- Clear distinction between company-reported and independently verified claims
- Honest representation of testing scope
- No misleading quality language
10%
RUO Positioning
How consistently and prominently the company maintains research-use-only positioning. This criterion evaluates whether RUO restrictions are integrated into the purchase process and product presentation, or limited to a single disclaimer page.
What we look for
- Consistent RUO language across the catalog
- RUO restrictions present in the purchase process
- No language that could be interpreted as suggesting therapeutic or personal-use applications
- Clear statement of intended use
10%
Website & Information Experience
The overall quality of the company's website as an information resource for researchers. This includes catalog organization, ease of navigation, quality of product descriptions, and the accessibility of supporting documentation.
What we look for
- Clear catalog organization
- Useful product descriptions
- Easy navigation to documentation
- Professional presentation
Rating Scale
★★★★★
Exceptional
4.5–5.0
Outstanding documentation, full transparency, exemplary RUO positioning.
★★★★☆
Strong
3.5–4.4
Solid documentation with minor gaps. Recommended for researchers who prioritise quality.
★★★☆☆
Mixed
2.5–3.4
Some strengths, meaningful shortcomings. Researchers should apply additional scrutiny.
★★☆☆☆
Significant shortcomings
1.5–2.4
Documentation gaps or transparency concerns that warrant caution.
★☆☆☆☆
Poor
0–1.4
Major documentation failures or serious transparency concerns.
Important Notes
The Peptorial Brief has not independently laboratory-tested any company's products. Ratings are editorial assessments based on publicly available information.
The Peptorial Brief is affiliated with AVRL Wellness. Company ratings are editorial assessments and should be read with that relationship clearly disclosed.
Ratings reflect conditions at the time of review. Companies may improve or change their practices after a review is published.
A lower rating does not mean a company's products are unsafe or unsuitable for research. It means the documentation available at the time of review did not meet the standards we apply.
See how every reviewed company scores.