# Peptriva Product Quality: eight lots, printed with the identifiers that make them checkable

> Pillar two of the Peptriva review: per-compound purity and measured net content for eight lots with accession numbers, and the purity band across the catalogue.

Source: https://peptrivareviews.com/product-quality
Publisher: Lab Supplier Reviews, Peptriva is company #1 on the roster

---

This is the pillar built entirely on documents Peptriva did not write. Eight publishable lots, a purity band 0.32 points wide, measured mass on every certificate, and per-component figures on the blends. Scored 4.5 out of 5.

## The lead finding

Eight publishable Peptriva lots sit inside a purity band 0.32 percentage points wide, and every one of them carries a measured mass alongside the purity figure. That is the finding, and it is the strongest pillar in this review at 4.5 out of 5, for a reason that has nothing to do with the numbers being high. It is because this is the pillar where Peptriva's own statements do almost no work. The figures below were generated by an outside laboratory, printed on documents that carry that laboratory's accession numbers, and published on a page a reader can open without asking anybody [1] [2].

What follows reprints somebody else's measurements from Peptriva's public ledger, with the identifiers intact so a reader can go and check that the reprinting is faithful.

A caution before the table. Four further compounds sit on a restricted tier and are absent from every table and example on this site. Their certificates exist, run the same panel, and appear on the same public ledger. They are omitted here as a publishing decision about litigation risk in this category, not as a statement about their results.

## Per-compound purity, net content, and accession numbers

Independent third-party results. Purity by HPLC-UV as area percent, net content as measured mass in the vial [1] [2].

| Product | Lot | Purity | Net content | Accession |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| KPV | KPV10-260504 | 99.90% | 11.30 mg | 2606300404 |
| CJC-1295 / Ipamorelin | CP10-260428 | 99.86% | Ipamorelin 5.14 mg, CJC-1295 5.26 mg | 2606300406 |
| GHK-Cu | CU50-260503 | 99.85% | 57.46 mg | 2606300412 |
| TB-500 (Thymosin Beta-4) | TB500(B4)-260428 | 99.80% | 13.28 mg | 2606300398 |
| MOTS-c | MS10-260508 | 99.73% | 11.16 mg | 2606300410 |
| NAD+ | NJ500-260503 | 99.61% | 527.61 mg | 2606300392 |
| GLOW Blend | GLOW70-260504 | 99.60% | GHK-Cu 60.42 mg, BPC-157 11.12 mg, Thymosin Beta-4 11.83 mg | 2606300414 |
| BPC-157 | BC10-260504 | 99.58% | 11.24 mg | 2606300400 |

Three columns of that table do different jobs, and a reader who uses only the purity column is discarding most of the evidence.

The lot column is what ties a document to an object. The code printed on the certificate either matches the code on the vial that arrived or it does not, and that is a check a buyer performs in about four seconds with no equipment and no expertise.

The accession column is the thread back to the laboratory. An accession number is the identifier under which a sample was logged, and it is what makes a certificate a document rather than a graphic. Quoting it, with the lot code, is what turns a question into an answerable question.

The net content column is the one most likely to be missing elsewhere. Every figure in it is a mass somebody weighed.

A ninth entry belongs alongside these. The lab solvent, a 10 mL presentation, carries lot BA10-260000 and two accession numbers, 2606300390 and 2606300391 [1]. Testing is microbial analysis by PCR, reported as no detectable microbial DNA, and endotoxin by LAL under USP General Chapter <85> [6]. Both pass, appearance is recorded as a clear liquid, and no purity assay applies to a solvent, which is why the panel differs there.

## The purity range across the catalogue

Across the eight publishable lots, reported purity runs from 99.58 percent to 99.90 percent [1]. The band is 0.32 percentage points wide, and the width is the informative part rather than the ceiling.

One lot at 99.90 percent is a result. Eight separately produced lots landing inside a third of a percentage point is a process, and the two support quite different conclusions. A single high figure could come from a favourable run, a favourable sample, or a favourable choice about which certificate to publish. A tight band across eight lots produced at different times, tested in one submission by one laboratory, is harder to arrange and easier to trust.

What the band does not establish is repeatability over time. All eight readings come from one submission received on 30 June 2026 [2], so the band measures consistency across lots rather than consistency across rounds. Those are different claims and this review does not blend them. Consistency across rounds is the thing that will exist or fail to exist when a second round is published, and it is watchable from the ledger itself.

## Blend testing as a structural signal

Two of the eight entries are blends, and the way they are certified is the most quietly informative thing on the ledger.

The CJC-1295 and Ipamorelin lot reports Ipamorelin at 5.14 mg and CJC-1295 at 5.26 mg [1]. The GLOW lot reports GHK-Cu at 60.42 mg, BPC-157 at 11.12 mg and Thymosin Beta-4 at 11.83 mg. In both cases the certificate states a mass per component rather than one combined mass for the vial.

A combined figure would hide the ratio, and the ratio is the whole content of a blend. A vial can hit its total mass while carrying far more of the cheap component and far less of the expensive one, and a single combined number cannot detect that. Reporting each component separately means the proportions are checkable, and it means the laboratory had to resolve and quantify each component rather than weigh the powder.

That is a structural signal rather than a quality claim. It says something about how carefully the panel was specified, which is the kind of evidence a cross-surface reading is built to notice: not the headline figure, but what the document chose to make checkable.

## Catalogue coverage: what Peptriva sells

Forty products are listed across nine mechanism categories: cytoprotective, GH secretagogues, peptide analogs, mitochondrial, copper peptides, nootropic and neuropeptide, melanocortin, senescence and antioxidant, and lab consumables [5]. Listed prices run from a floor of $19.99 to a ceiling of $129.99.

Fulfilment is United States only, including the District of Columbia, with no international shipping [4]. The carrier service is FedEx 2-Day with tracking. Shipping is free on every order and there is no cart minimum. Lyophilized material is stable at ambient temperature in transit and ships in standard parcel packaging, and Peptriva does not claim cold-chain shipping: the cold-chain reference in the testing story applies to the distribution facility where the independent re-test happens, not to the parcel.

## Honest gap: thirteen of forty listings are in stock

Thirteen of the forty listed products are in stock [5]. That is roughly a third of the catalogue, and a reader who lands on the storefront expecting forty available products will not find them.

The gap should be read correctly, and it is not a certification gap. All thirteen in-stock products are certified [1] [5]. The other twenty-seven are listed products with no current lot behind them, and under the release rule described on the testing-methodology page, a product with no certified lot does not become sellable stock in the first place. The two facts are the same fact seen from opposite sides: complete certification coverage and a partly empty catalogue are what one rule produces when supply is thin.

It is still a cost to the buyer, and this review scores it as one. A catalogue where two thirds of the listings cannot be bought is a worse catalogue than one where they can, whatever the reason. The deduction in this pillar is for that and for the single testing round behind the whole table, not for anything in the measurements.

What this pillar does not establish is anything about what these compounds do. The panel measures identity, purity, net content, endotoxin and appearance, and nothing on the ledger measures an effect. The material is sold for in vitro research use only, carries no FDA approval, and is not for human or veterinary use by any route [3].