Public, indexed COAs
The COA page reachable without login. URLs that resolve, dated certificates, batch numbers visible.
Investigative report · 2026-05
peptidescore.com is a fabricated peptide review site.
peptidescore.com presents itself as an "independent, non-profit consumer protection organization" conducting "independent laboratory analysis" of peptide samples. None of that survives the live evidence. peptidescore.com publishes fabricated rankings against real US peptide vendors, runs auto-generated content that was never reviewed by a human, names no laboratory anywhere on its site, and operates a pay-to-remove model where vendors are charged for the right to edit defamatory statements peptidescore.com itself published about them.
We built Real Peptide Scores in response. Below is the evidence — six observable tells, every one re-checkable on the live peptidescore.com site today.
Other sites in this same pattern exist; peptidescore.com is the most active example we've documented. As we encounter additional fabricated review sites we'll add them here.
Exhibit A · The ranking that doesn't track to anything
Polaris Peptides: peptidescore.com's #1, our F.
peptidescore.com ranks Polaris Peptides at the top of five peptide categories — BPC-157, Tirzepatide, Retatrutide, NAD+, and CJC-1295. We audited Polaris in May 2026 and found:
- Zero public COAs. The
/lab-resultspage is marketing copy; the actual reports are gated behind email plus an order ID. - No lab named, anywhere on the site.
- The polarispeptidesusa.com domain entered the Wayback Machine on 2026-04-19 — three weeks before the audit. The "every batch tested" claim has no observable backing.
A vendor that publishes nothing verifiable cannot be ranked first against vendors that publish 50+ third-party COAs. The peptidescore.com ranking does not track to evidence — it is a fabricated score. See the full audit →
What we observed on peptidescore.com
Six observable tells.
No. 01The same copy-paste error in every category
The description for every peptide category — Semaglutide, Tirzepatide, Retatrutide, BPC-157, NAD+, CJC-1295 — claims ratings are "calculated from the test scores of Tirzepatide samples." A category description copied verbatim across six different peptides is not an editorial slip; it is the residue of a templated content pipeline that was never reviewed by a human.
"These PeptideScore Ratings are calculated from the test scores of Tirzepatide samples sourced from each vendor…" — peptidescore.com homepage, Semaglutide section, May 2026.
No. 02Self-contradicting site statistics
The same homepage simultaneously states "99 samples from 147 vendors", "76 samples from 114 vendors", and "96 vendors". A real audit operation knows how many samples it has run.
No. 03No named laboratory, anywhere
Every claim refers to a "PeptideScore" test but no laboratory is named. There is no chain of custody, no lab letterhead, no way to verify any "test" through an issuing lab's portal.
No. 04Vendor profiles editorialize unsourced findings
peptidescore.com's vendor profiles open with statements like "<vendor> advertises a high level of product purity. Independent laboratory analysis of sampled products identified elevated lead contamination, which does not align with such assertions." The "View Report" link does not lead to a lab report; the "1 Sample" claim does not specify which batch was sampled or how it was authenticated. The vendor cited may publish dozens or hundreds of public batch-level COAs through a named third-party laboratory — peptidescore.com cites none of it.
No. 05Pay-to-edit-your-defamation
Each vendor profile carries a banner: "Editing the description is available only for Premium vendors. Please upgrade to a Premium plan…" The site asserts a defamatory finding, then offers to let the vendor pay for the right to edit it.
No. 06Broken outbound links
Several vendor pages on peptidescore.com link to https://undefined?utm_… rather than a real vendor URL. The site ships JavaScript template artefacts as published links — another tell of an unreviewed pipeline.
Same vendors. Different question.
Reputation is not the same as verifiable evidence.
Existing peptide-vendor review sites mostly answer "which vendor do users like?" or "which vendor pays the highest affiliate?" We answer "which vendor's claims can be re-checked?". The two answers diverge in interesting ways.
Power Peptides, for example: 1,144+ Reviews.io reviews at 4.8 stars, going back to 2019. We grade them F because they publish zero public COAs and name no lab. The reputation is real. The verifiable evidence isn't there. Both facts can be true. This site scores on the verifiable evidence — that's the question we exist to answer.
| Dimension | peptidescore.com | Real Peptide Scores |
|---|---|---|
| Primary signal | Unsourced "test" claims attributed to "PeptideScore" | Public COAs + named lab + portal verification |
| Lab named on findings | No | Yes — every lab named, linked where verifiable |
| Re-checkable evidence | No — "View Report" links do not resolve to lab reports | Yes — every claim links to a public URL |
| Methodology published | One-paragraph hand-wave; per-category descriptions copy-paste "Tirzepatide" across all six categories | Mechanical rubric, public |
| Pay-to-edit | Defamatory profile, then "Premium" upsell for the right to edit it | Corrections require evidence, not payment |
| Self-disclosure | Anonymous operator | Methodology, dataset, and corrections process all public (about) |
| Dataset downloadable | No | Yes — JSON per vendor, CC BY 4.0 |
Three pillars
What "verifiable" actually means here.
Named, verifiable lab
The COA names the issuing lab. The lab has a portal or third-party lookup. We can re-check at least one COA.
Branded artifacts match
The vial in the COA matches the vendor's actual product packaging. Generic stock vials are a red flag.
Disagree with our framing? Tell us why.