How this site is made
Editorial policy
PeptideRank covers peptide therapy broadly — the recovery and growth-hormone peptides, the GLP-1 drugs, NAD+, and the telehealth clinics that sell them. This page is the standard all of it is held to, written so you can check whether we met it.
Every claim is tied to a source you can open
Every claim in a published guide is tied to a source you can open: a peer-reviewed study cited by its PubMed ID, or official FDA labelling. Nothing here is sourced to a vendor's product page, a forum protocol or another blog. Where a claim rests on animal or cell-culture work — which, for most of these compounds, is all there is — we say so in the sentence that makes the claim, rather than letting “studies show” do the work of hiding it. Where a compound's evidence is thin, the write-up says thin — we do not have an article library yet, and until we do this policy governs the provider reviews and the ranked boards rather than a body of long-form research we have not published.
How providers are ranked — and where the money sits in it
Where a provider has a commercial relationship with us, it is placed first on a ranked list and labelled as a disclosed commercial position rather than dressed up as a verdict — the ordering rule is identical on every board and enforced automatically, so it cannot quietly differ from one page to the next. We never write copy claiming a list is ordered purely on merit. What a commission cannot buy is the assessment printed beside each provider. Nothing here carries a number: no score out of ten, no star rating, no letter grade. A number invites you to trust the number instead of the evidence, and ours would be an opinion dressed as a measurement. What each provider gets instead is a sentence, and at least one stated drawback, and a commercial relationship never earns an exemption from that, because a review with nothing uncomfortable in it is marketing. Read the whole money picture on how we earn.
Prices are read off the seller's own page, on a date we print
Every dollar figure we publish about a provider was read directly from that provider's own public page, and we record both the URL we read it on and the date we read it. We do not repeat a price from a third-party blog, an affiliate feed or a comparison table someone else compiled — a figure with no first-hand check behind it is a guess wearing a dollar sign. Prices in this market move, so entries are re-checked and the verification date moves with them; a page that has not been re-checked shows its real, older date rather than a refreshed one. Where an advertised headline is really a prepay rate, an auto-refill-only rate, or a medication price with a membership underneath it, we name that trap in plain words and print the true month-to-month cost next to it, on the board itself, with the date we checked it.
“Not published” is a finding, and we print it
When a provider publishes no price, we say “pricing not published” and leave the field empty. We do not estimate it, average it, or borrow a number from somewhere else to keep the table looking complete. The same rule applies to the catalogue: if a company is widely described as selling a compound and we cannot find that compound anywhere on its own site, the finding is that we could not find it — and that has cost providers a place on a board more than once. An empty cell is information. A filled-in cell we could not verify is a fabrication, and it is the specific failure this site exists to avoid.
When we get something wrong
We will get things wrong: this field moves, prices change without notice, and regulators reclassify compounds mid-year. When we find an error — or you do — we fix the page rather than argue with it, and the piece's updated date moves so you can see it changed. When a correction changes a conclusion rather than a detail, we say what changed inside the piece instead of editing quietly and hoping nobody had already read it. If a source we relied on is retracted or superseded, the claim built on it comes out. Corrections go to hello@peptiderank.org and we read all of them.
No commission changes a word
No partner sees our copy before it runs, and none can approve, edit or veto a conclusion. We do not take payment to publish a review and we do not accept fees to change one. An unflattering finding about a paying provider stays in — that is the only version of this promise that means anything, because a promise that only holds for companies who owe us nothing is not a promise. If a page is ever sponsored, it will say so at the top, in the first thing you read.
What this site is not
It is not medical advice, and it is not a shop. Most of the compounds covered here are not FDA-approved for recovery, performance or body composition, several are sold only as research chemicals, and many are banned in tested sport, year-round, whether or not a clinician prescribed them. We state that on the page rather than in a footer, because for a competing athlete it is usually the only fact that matters. See the medical disclaimer and talk to a licensed clinician before starting anything.
Written and maintained by Marcus Webb, Pricing & Provider Research Editor — more about who writes here.