This is the scoring system behind every compound page and comparison on Buy Healthy Peptides. It scores properties of the molecule and the state of the evidence — never how well something works, and never whether you should buy it. Every score traces to a published, checkable fact with a citation next to it.
We publish the rubric so you can disagree with us. A number without a stated reason is marketing; a number with a definition and a citation is a spec sheet.
Last reviewed: 16 September 2026.
What these scores are not
- Not an effectiveness rating. No axis measures results. A compound can score well across the board and still have no evidence that it does anything useful in humans.
- Not a safety rating. The safety axis scores how thoroughly risks have been documented, not how small they are. A drug with a boxed warning scores high because its risks are known precisely.
- Not a recommendation. We publish no overall score, no composite, and no star ratings. An overall number is a verdict, and a verdict is not ours to give on compounds most of which are not approved for human use.
- Not a substitute for medical advice. Nothing here is guidance to use any compound. Most peptides covered on this site are not approved for human use in the United States.
Scores are editorial judgements applied against the definitions below. They are not laboratory measurements, and they are not adjusted for commercial reasons — see our affiliate disclosure.
The universal axes
These apply to every compound on the site regardless of class, so pages can be compared across categories.
1. Duration of action
How long the compound remains biologically active, anchored to functional half-life.
| Score | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 1–2 | Under 30 minutes |
| 3–4 | 30 minutes – 2 hours |
| 5–6 | 2 – 12 hours |
| 7–8 | 12 – 48 hours |
| 9–10 | Multiple days to weekly |
We score the specific form, not the compound family. Duration is formulation-dependent, and this is where published comparisons most often go wrong.
2. Target selectivity
How cleanly the compound hits its intended receptor without off-target activity.
| Score | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 1–3 | Broad off-target activity; documented cross-activation of unrelated hormonal axes |
| 4–6 | Moderate off-target effects at working concentrations |
| 7–8 | Clean at typical research concentrations; minor documented off-target activity |
| 9–10 | Highly selective; no meaningful off-target activity reported |
3. Evidence depth
How well characterised the compound is in published literature. This is a “how much do we actually know” score, not a quality score.
| Score | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 1–2 | In vitro or theoretical only |
| 3–4 | Animal studies only, or a single small human study |
| 5–6 | Multiple small human studies, non-randomised or open-label |
| 7–8 | Multiple randomised controlled trials |
| 9–10 | Regulatory approval somewhere, with extensive clinical literature |
Any page where a compound scores 3 or below on this axis states plainly that mechanistic plausibility is not clinical proof. Most research peptides sit at 2–4, and saying so is the point of the axis.
4. Pathway coverage
How many distinct receptor pathways the compound engages. Breadth is not a virtue — it is a description. Single-target compounds are easier to reason about; multi-target compounds may do more and are harder to predict.
| Score | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 5 | One receptor or pathway |
| 7–8 | Two pathways, or one dominant with a documented secondary |
| 9–10 | Three or more pathways engaged by design, or a blend hitting distinct receptors |
This axis began as a growth-hormone-secretagogue-only measure and now applies site-wide: a GLP-1-only agonist scores 5, a dual GLP-1/GIP agonist 7–8, a triple agonist 9–10. Our guide to GLP-1 and incretin peptides works through that family in detail.
5. Regulatory standing (United States)
A factual position, date-stamped on every page because it moves. Sports status is reported separately as a fact in each page’s spec box and is not scored.
| Score | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 1 | Placed on the FDA’s Category 2 list of bulk substances presenting significant safety risks, or otherwise restricted from compounding |
| 2–3 | Research use only; no approved human use and not eligible for compounding |
| 4–5 | Under active FDA consideration, such as a pending nomination to a bulks list |
| 6–7 | Permitted for compounding under 503A or 503B conditions |
| 8–9 | FDA-approved for at least one indication |
| 10 | FDA-approved for multiple indications with substantial post-marketing history |
6. Safety characterisation
How completely the risk profile has been documented. A high score does not mean a compound is safe. It means the risks are known and quantified. A low score means nobody knows — which is a different and often worse position to be in.
| Score | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 1–2 | No published human safety data of any kind |
| 3–4 | Animal toxicology only, or scattered case reports |
| 5–6 | Safety data from small or short-duration human studies |
| 7–8 | Adverse events quantified across multiple controlled human trials |
| 9–10 | Regulatory-grade safety labelling plus post-marketing surveillance |
7. Analytical verifiability
How readily a claim about identity and purity can be checked. This scores the compound — whether the methods and reference standards exist for anyone to verify it — not whether a particular seller’s certificate is genuine. Our separate guide to reading a certificate of analysis covers the second question.
| Score | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 1–2 | No public reference standard or published method; identity hard to confirm independently |
| 3–4 | Identity confirmable by mass, but no purity method in the public domain |
| 5–6 | Published HPLC and mass-spectrometry methods exist; reference standards commercially available |
| 7–8 | Well-established validated methods, routinely seen on third-party certificates |
| 9–10 | Compendial monograph or regulatory-grade specifications |
How we score vendors
Vendor pages use a separate set of axes, and every one of them is a verifiable fact rather than an opinion. Nothing here scores product quality, and we publish no overall vendor score or ranking number.
| Axis | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Third-party testing transparency | Whether independent lab results are published, for which lots, and by which lab |
| Certificate completeness | Whether certificates show identity, purity, method, lot number, date and the testing party |
| Policy clarity | Whether returns, shipping, storage and terms are stated plainly and findable |
| Pricing transparency | Whether unit pricing and total cost are visible before checkout |
| Track record | Verifiable operating history, and any public regulatory action |
Every vendor fact is dated, because vendor sites change. We do not publish customer reviews, testimonials or star ratings, and we never reproduce a laboratory result we have not seen ourselves.
Worked example: growth hormone secretagogues
Scored on the four axes this category was first mapped against, and kept here as the category’s reference example. The three axes added above — regulatory standing, safety characterisation and analytical verifiability — are being applied to compound pages as those pages are written and revised, so you will see pages carrying four axes and pages carrying seven while that work proceeds. The sourcing behind each figure below is set out in our growth hormone secretagogue guide.
| Compound | Duration | Selectivity | Evidence | Pathway |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tesamorelin | 4 | 9 | 10 | 5 |
| Sermorelin | 2 | 9 | 8 | 5 |
| MK-677 (ibutamoren) | 8 | 6 | 7 | 5 |
| Ipamorelin | 3 | 10 | 4 | 5 |
| CJC-1295 with DAC | 9 | 7 | 4 | 5 |
| Modified GRF (1-29) | 3 | 8 | 4 | 5 |
| GHRP-2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| GHRP-6 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Hexarelin | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| CJC-1295 + ipamorelin | 9 | 7 | 3 | 10 |
Why each score lands where it does
Tesamorelin — FDA-approved as Egrifta with large randomised trials behind it, which is why evidence tops the scale. A short functional half-life keeps duration low.
Sermorelin — held FDA approval as Geref before commercial withdrawal, so the clinical literature is real. A half-life of roughly 10–20 minutes is the shortest in the category.
MK-677 — orally active with roughly 24-hour duration and a substantial trial programme, but never approved. Selectivity is marked down for documented effects on insulin sensitivity and appetite.
Ipamorelin — the selectivity benchmark, on animal data: minimal cortisol, prolactin or aldosterone activity at GH-stimulating concentrations is the reason it displaced GHRP-6 and GHRP-2 as a research tool. Evidence is low because its clinical programme produced no approved indication.
CJC-1295 with DAC — albumin conjugation gives a half-life measured in days, the longest in the category. Selectivity sits at 7 rather than 9 because sustained receptor occupancy is itself a confound, distinct from receptor promiscuity.
GHRP-6 and hexarelin — low selectivity is well documented: cortisol and prolactin elevation, plus strong appetite signalling for GHRP-6 and receptor desensitisation for hexarelin.
Scoring blends and combinations
- Duration — take the longest-acting component
- Selectivity — take the lowest-scoring component; the weakest link governs
- Evidence — score the combination, not the parts. Combination data is almost always thinner than single-agent data, so blends land 1–2 points below their components
- Pathway coverage — 9–10 if the components engage distinct receptors
Rules we hold ourselves to
- Every score on every page carries a one-line justification and a citation. A score without both does not get published.
- No composite score, no overall rating, no stars.
- We cite only sources we have actually read, and we label the evidence level of every finding as human randomised trial, human observational, animal, or in vitro.
- Regulatory statements carry the month they were checked, and get re-checked when status changes.
- Scores are re-examined when a formulation changes or new evidence lands. Duration in particular is formulation-dependent, not compound-dependent.
- Low scores stay low. If everything scored 8, the scores would carry no information — the credibility is in the low numbers.
- We do not sell peptides, and commercial relationships never move a score.
A specific caveat: CJC-1295 and DAC
The duration score of 9 applies only to DAC-conjugated CJC-1295. Modified GRF (1-29) is frequently sold under the CJC-1295 name and scores 3 on that axis — a six-point swing on the property this category is usually compared on.
If you are assessing a product, the form should be stated on the certificate of analysis, and the two forms should be listed separately rather than treated as one. We score them as separate entries for exactly that reason.