How We Score Supplier Transparency
Peptide Reviews' framework for evaluating supplier transparency and trustworthiness.
Last updated: 25 April 2026
Six transparency criteria
We score suppliers on: COA Availability (batch-specific documents with raw data), Third-Party Testing (independent lab verification), Manufacturing Disclosure (facility location, synthesis method, quality procedures), Support Quality (responsiveness, technical depth), Refund Clarity (explicit policies), Affiliate Transparency (disclosed financial relationships).
Scoring COA availability
Full transparency: batch-specific COA with raw chromatograms, spectra, and full methods. Partial: COA provided but missing raw data or generalized. None: no COA or reused across batches.
Scoring third-party testing
Full: independent accredited labs used; results traceable and verifiable. Partial: some testing done independently; some in-house. None: all testing in-house; no independent verification.
Scoring manufacturing disclosure
Full: facility location published, synthesis method specified, quality systems documented. Partial: some information provided. None: no disclosure of manufacturing details.
Synthesis of scores
Suppliers scoring full on all six criteria are flagged as high-transparency. Suppliers with significant gaps or missing information are scored lower. We do not recommend suppliers that refuse basic transparency.