The Register

A list of peptide products that pass a published standard. No brand pays to be on it, and no brand is excluded for refusing to. Two products currently pass it; most of the market, checked against the same bar, does not.

What the Register is — and isn't

It is a shop window with a doorman. We select products we think meet a bar, we publish the bar, and we publish which checks each product passed and failed. When we eventually earn commission on a sale, we say so on the page, every time.

It is not an independent rating of the whole market. We're a retailer with a standard, not a referee — and we'd rather be plain about that than borrow authority we haven't earned. If you want an independent referee, you want a body that takes no money from anyone in the supply chain, including us.

The eleven checks

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.

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

1. We read the product page, the ingredient list and the claims as a customer would.
2. We check the FDA warning letter database and the company's registration.
3. 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.
4. We record every check as pass, fail or not applicable, with the date and the evidence.
5. The assessment is published in full — including the failures — and re-run at least annually.

What's currently listed

Two products, both oral collagen peptide supplements, currently pass every check that applies to their category. Both assessments were run 11 September 2026 and are due for re-run within a year.

Neither listing earns us anything. There is no commercial programme with either company, and none was contacted before publishing this. If that changes, it will be disclosed here before it happens, per our standard.

Where the standard isn't being met yet

We also checked 21 real, currently-sold products across the three topical categories covered in the Library — copper peptide serums, Matrixyl 3000 serums, and Argireline serums. None currently pass. 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

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.