Home›Check a product
Check a product
See which specific products we checked and what we could verify. “Checked” means we checked a product's labelling, testing and regulatory record against the eleven checks listed below. This section is our Register: a list of peptide products checked against a published standard, showing the result of every check. No brand pays to be on it, and no brand is excluded for refusing to. Zero product currently passes it; most of the market, checked against the same bar, does not.
What this is not: a product check is not an evidence grade. A pass here is about a product's labelling, testing and regulatory record on the date shown. It does not say the ingredient works, and it is not medical advice. For what the research says about an ingredient, go to Explore peptides.
How to read a result. Each result is dated. Every check is recorded as Pass, Fail or N/A (not applicable), or shown as Open while it has not yet been independently confirmed, with the date and the evidence (see "How a brand is assessed" below). A Pass means the product did not meet that check's "Fails if" condition in the table of eleven checks. N/A means the check does not apply to that type of product, for example pH for an oral product. For the warning-letter check, a Pass means no FDA warning letter was issued and left unresolved; the evidence column gives the detail (for example "None found"). A listed product passes every check that applies to its category. Each result gets re-checked on the schedule shown.
What the Register is — and isn't
It is a published standard applied to specific products. We publish the eleven checks, we check products against them using public records and each product's own labelling, and we publish the result of each check. A pass is a statement about a product's labelling, testing and regulatory record on the date shown. It is not a statement about whether the ingredient works.
Commercial relationships today: no commercial relationship is recorded for any product currently listed in the Register. The Register runs no advertising. The links on each listing go to the brand's own website, with no referral code attached. We count how many times each of those links is clicked — an aggregate per-brand total only, with no cookies, no visitor profile and no record of who clicked. Nothing about a visitor's searches, health interests or use of the Register is sent to any partner.
If that changes: a commercial or affiliate relationship could be added only after a product has independently passed the published standard. Payment cannot start, speed up, change or preserve an assessment or a listing, and a product that later fails the standard is removed or updated in the normal way whatever its commercial status. Any such link would carry a clear, visible “we may earn a commission” notice next to it and on the product page, and the change would be disclosed on this page. Earning a commission is never evidence that a product is better or safer, and it affects neither the result of any check nor whether a product is listed.
The Register covers the products we have checked; it is not a rating of the whole market. If you want a view of the whole market, look for a body that takes no money from anyone in the supply chain.
Two rules we've committed to
We will list a brand that passes the standard and has no commercial programme with us. And we will refuse a brand that pays well and fails it. If either stops being true, the Register is worthless and you should stop reading us.
The eleven checks (how we check)
Every check below can be verified without a brand's cooperation, from public records or the product's own labelling. That's deliberate: a standard that depends on being told the truth isn't a standard.
| # | Check | Fails if |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Active disclosed at an exact percentage | "Peptide complex", or no figure |
| 2 | Finished pH stated and within range | Not published, or outside 5.0–6.5 for copper peptides |
| 3 | Batch certificate of analysis available | No COA, or one that can't be tied to a lot number |
| 4 | COA includes identity, not just purity | HPLC only, no mass spectrometry |
| 5 | No chelating agent that inactivates the active | EDTA present alongside a copper peptide |
| 6 | Claims stay within cosmetic or DSHEA limits | Any claim to treat, cure or prevent a condition |
| 7 | No FDA warning letter on record | Letter issued and not resolved |
| 8 | Does not sell research-use-only injectables | Any RUO peptide vial in the catalogue |
| 9 | Does not sell reconstitution supplies | Bacteriostatic water or syringes alongside peptides |
| 10 | Named company, real address, working contact | Anonymous ownership or a dead phone number |
| 11 | Independent certification where applicable | Ingestibles with no NSF, USP or equivalent |
Checks 8 and 9 exclude most of the peptide market by volume. That is the intended effect. A brand selling unapproved injectable drugs alongside a face serum is telling you what it is.
How a brand is assessed
- We read the product page, the ingredient list and the claims as a customer would.
- We check the FDA warning letter database and the company's registration.
- We request the batch COA and the finished pH. A brand that won't provide them fails at this step, and we record that it declined rather than that it failed.
- We record every check as pass, fail or not applicable, with the date and the evidence.
- The assessment is published in full — including the failures — and re-run at least annually.
What's currently listed
Notice, 3 October 2026: one product temporarily removed from the passing list
On 3 October 2026 one product was temporarily removed from this list while a review of all applicable points is completed. This is not a fail and it is not a finding of wrongdoing. The earlier assessment and its evidence are preserved, and the product will be listed again only after a complete review supports it. Until then, nothing on this page is a statement about whether that product meets the standard. See the corrections log for the dated entry.
Notice, 14 October 2026: named listings now require a full pass
From 14 October 2026 a product is named on this Register only when it has a full pass. Products whose review is incomplete, on hold or failed are not named; this page shows aggregate counts for them.
No product is named on this list right now. A product is named here only after a full pass, with every applicable check independently confirmed; the product listed here before has been removed from the public list until its review is complete. This is not a fail and not a finding of wrongdoing.
| Product | Category | Verdict | Verified as of | Next scheduled check |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No product currently passes every applicable check. | ||||
Listings earn us nothing. There is no commercial programme with any company on this Register. If that changes, it would be disclosed here, per our standard.
Where the standard isn't being met yet
We also checked 97 real, currently-sold products across the five topical categories covered in the Library — copper peptide serums, Matrixyl 3000 serums, Argireline serums, Palmitoyl tripeptide-1 (Biopeptide CL) products, and Snap-8 serums. None currently pass. (A further 14 products in these same categories are still queued for classification and aren't part of that count.) In every single case, the gap is the same: no brand offers a customer-facing, batch-linked certificate of analysis that also includes identity testing by mass spectrometry rather than purity testing alone — one product came close with a genuine batch-searchable COA, but couldn't confirm mass-spec identity testing specifically. Several brands do disclose an exact percentage on the label, which is more than we expected going in — but a real, identity-confirmed COA simply isn't standard practice in consumer skincare yet, the way it already is in sports-supplement manufacturing.
We're naming the finding, not the brands: publishing a detailed pass/fail table for products that don't clear the bar, built partly from secondary sources rather than a brand's own direct cooperation, is a step we're not willing to take casually. The aggregate result is the honest, defensible version of what we found — the topical peptide market, as a whole, does not currently offer the transparency this standard requires. We'll list the first product in each category that does.
What happens next
What you can do next: learn about an ingredient · see how we check · report an error · request a product check.
Assessments are re-run at least annually, and we'll re-check the topical categories periodically rather than waiting a full year, since this is exactly the kind of gap that could close as soon as one brand decides to compete on transparency instead of marketing copy.
Between full re-checks, a lighter weekly scan runs against every listed product looking specifically for anything new since its last full assessment — new litigation, a new regulatory action, a licensing change, a change of ownership, or a company that's stopped operating. That scan isn't a re-run of all eleven checks; it's a tripwire. If it turns up anything material, we run the full assessment again before the listing changes or before its next scheduled check date, rather than waiting for the calendar.
Want a specific product checked?
Tell us which product — real requests are how we decide what to check next. We can't promise a timeline or that every request gets checked. You'll get one confirmation email. Unpublished names have no status we can confirm publicly; if a product is later named on this Register, we'll email you a link to its listing.
Spotted a hole in the standard itself instead? Use the contact form on the About page.
Corrections
If a listed product's verdict turns out to be wrong or out of date, we fix it and log the correction here — dated, with what changed and why — rather than editing the listing silently. A record you can't correct isn't a record, and a correction nobody can see isn't a correction. This log covers the Register specifically; see our standard for the sitewide corrections policy.
| Date | Product | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| 23 September 2026 | One product (since removed from the public list) | Fixed a mislabeled result summary ("9 of 9 applicable checks passed" corrected to 8 of 8 — 2 of the 10 standard points are N/A for an oral product). Fully reverified all 8 applicable checks against fresh, independently-checked evidence. Verdict unchanged (pass). |
| 23 September 2026 | One product (since removed from the public list) | Fixed the same "9 of 9" → "8 of 8" mislabel. Delta scan corrected to disclose a Consumer Reports lead finding on a different, discontinued product from the same brand that does not concern this product. Fully reverified all 8 applicable checks against fresh, independently-checked evidence. Verdict unchanged (pass). |
| 23 September 2026 | One product (since removed from the public list) | A separate, genuinely independent verification pass (a fresh reverification against an immutable, hash-frozen evidence packet) could not corroborate a previously-cited "2013" FDA warning letter through any independently-identifiable source — the citation was removed. The well-documented 2004 letter (unrelated products, predates this certification by roughly two decades) remains. Verdict unchanged (pass, 8 of 8). |
| 28 September 2026 | Register-wide (not a listing verdict) | Corrected two stale summary figures in this page's own copy: "Products assessed" read 179 against a real, current count of 204, and the topical-gap paragraph read "89 products checked, none pass" against a real, current count of 97 failed (plus 14 more still queued for classification, now stated separately). Neither figure is a check result or a listing verdict — both are now bound to the underlying ledger at build time so they can't drift silently again. |
| 30 September 2026 | Register-wide (not a listing verdict) | Corrected the Register's “What the Register is — and isn't” section and the matching wording on the How we make money, Terms and About pages and in the "Why this site doesn't take vendor payment for placement" Library page. The earlier copy called the Register “a shop window with a doorman”, said “we're a retailer with a standard”, and said “when we eventually earn commission on a sale, we say so”. That wording could be read as saying the Register sells products or already earns, or is about to earn, commission; it does not. The Register sells nothing, has no advertising, no affiliate or commission arrangement and no payment from any brand, and its links to listed brands are plain links with no referral code. The section now says that directly, says that any future affiliate or commission link would carry a visible “we may earn a commission” notice and would be added only to a product that has already passed, and says that commercial relationships affect neither an evidence grade nor a Register result. No result or listing changed. |
| 1 October 2026 | Register-wide (not a listing verdict) | Refined the “Commercial relationships today” statement that the 30 September correction introduced. It had said “no brand has paid to be assessed or listed”, which describes history this page cannot document. It now states only what the Register records today: no commercial relationship is recorded for any product currently listed. The page also now states the conditions for any future relationship (only after a product has independently passed; payment cannot start, speed up, change or preserve an assessment or listing; a product that later fails is removed or updated whatever its commercial status; aggregate click counts only, no visitor profiles, nothing sent to a partner) and that commission is never evidence a product is better or safer. The same sentence was removed from the Register summary and the two product listing pages (“none was contacted before publishing this” and “disclosed … before it happens”), for the same reason. No result or listing changed. |
| 3 October 2026 | One listing (status change, not a verdict) | One product was temporarily removed from the passing list while a review of all applicable points is completed. This is not a fail and not a finding of wrongdoing. The earlier assessment, its verdict history and its evidence are preserved unchanged. The product will be listed again only after a complete review supports it. The count of listed products, the at-a-glance table, the comparison table and the listing cards on this page were updated together, and no commercial or tracked outbound link remains for it. |
| 4 October 2026 | One product (since removed from the public list) | Wording correction, not a change of verdict history. The listing had been described as “8 of 8 applicable checks passed” and as having passed every applicable check, although two applicable checks (Claims and Batch COA) had not been independently confirmed, and two others (RUO injectables / reconstitution supplies, Company info) rest on secondary evidence only. The listing now reads “Review incomplete” with the confirmed and open checks stated on every page that describes it, plus a dated review note. The earlier “8 of 8” entries in this log are kept as dated history. The listing and its first-assessment dates are unchanged. |
Report an error or dispute a finding
Spotted something wrong on a listing — a stale detail, a check we got wrong, or a finding you can show doesn't hold up? Tell us using the contact form on the About page (choose "Report an error / request a correction"). We commit to reviewing every report within 5 business days and will log the outcome here, in the corrections table above, whether that's a fix, a clarification, or an explanation of why the listing stands.