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 labeling. Across 124 published articles that is 339 distinct PubMed records — each one a link you can follow to the abstract and check the claim against, not a citation count we are asking you to take on faith. 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 the evidence is thin the write-up says thin, and where a compound has no ranked board because nobody we track sells it, the write-up says that too rather than implying a market that is not there.
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 labeled 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. Money can buy position on a board and it is labeled where it does. It cannot buy the sentence printed next to the provider, and it has never once removed one.
You will not find a score anywhere on this site — no rating out of ten, no stars, no letter grade — and the structured data behind these pages carries none either, so nothing here can be scraped into a rich result implying a measurement we never took. A single digit would compress four pass/fail checks, a price shape and a pharmacy disclosure into something that looks objective and is not. What each provider gets instead is a sentence a reader can argue with, 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.
The exact ranking rule, in full, so it can be checked: within the group described above — and separately, identically, within the group of every other provider — every row is scored against four pass/fail checks — does it name its compounding pharmacy and state a federal regulatory category, does it publish which states it serves, does it publish a real price, and is that price the actual ongoing cost with no prepay or auto-refill required to unlock it. A provider that passes more of those four checks ranks above one that passes fewer, full stop, within its own group; providers tied on that count are then ordered by their own advertised price, low to high. A provider's placement within its group is never for sale — paying for a better rank than another partner, or for a spot ahead of a non-partner without becoming a disclosed partner, is not a product this site offers. You can see exactly how any provider scored on its own review page. 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 — 515 advertised prices across 203 sellers, each carrying its own verification date, every one of them downloadable. 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. Every board's prices are also aggregated, unmodified, into one cross-board pricing index — the same figures, sortable and filterable by compound, in a single table.
“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. That is not a rare edge case in this market: of 515 advertised prices only 323 are a plain monthly rate you can simply pay, and the other 192 carry a condition the advertised figure does not state. The same rule applies to the catalog: 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. Prices in this market move without notice, providers rename themselves, and regulators reclassify compounds mid-year — this site has already had to retire a board after the FDA changed a compound's status underneath it.
So the rule is: we fix the page rather than defend it, and the piece's updated date moves so the change is visible rather than quietly absorbed. Where a correction changes a conclusion and not merely a detail, the piece says what it used to say — a reader who acted on the old version is owed that, and a silent edit treats them as if they never existed. If a source underneath a claim is retracted or superseded, the claim comes out with it rather than being left standing on a citation that no longer supports it. Corrections go to hello@peptiderank.org and we read all of them.
No commission changes a word
No provider sees a word of this before it publishes. None has approval, edit rights or a veto over a conclusion, and none has ever been given a preview in exchange for anything. We do not sell reviews and we do not sell changes to them.
The test of that is not what happens to companies who owe us nothing — it is what happens to the ones who pay. Providers that earn this site a commission carry the same recorded drawbacks as every other row, in the same words, on the same page that links to them; that is checkable rather than promised, because every commercial relationship we hold is listed by provider on conflicts of interest. If a page is ever sponsored outright, it will say so in the first line you read, not in a footer.
What this site is not
Nothing here is medical advice, and nothing here is for sale by us. Most of what this site covers has no FDA approval for recovery, performance or body composition; some of it is sold only as a research chemical; and the growth-hormone secretagogues are prohibited in tested sport all year, prescription or not.
That last fact appears on the pages it applies to and is deliberately kept off the ones it does not — a warning printed everywhere teaches a reader that our warnings are decoration, which is worse than not printing it at all. For someone who competes, it is usually the only fact on the page that changes anything. See the medical disclaimer and talk to a licensed clinician before starting anything.
Written and maintained by our editorial team — full bylines and contact emails.