How to Evaluate a Peptide Testing Lab's Trustworthiness

A trustworthy peptide testing lab meets four criteria: it is accredited to a recognized international standard (most commonly ISO/IEC 17025:2017), discloses its methodology and analytical equipment, operates independently of any peptide vendor's financial control, and provides a public verification mechanism for its certificates of analysis. Accreditation alone is not sufficient — the lab's scope of accreditation must cover peptide purity testing specifically, a nuance most competitor articles miss. The single most reliable starting point is verifying the accreditation directly in the relevant body's directory; this takes approximately 15 minutes.

This article is the methodology hub for evaluating any third-party peptide testing lab — the framework that sits upstream of the Peptigrity testing labs directory, which tracks 27 independent labs across 4 countries with 5,336 cross-vendor tests processed and an average HPLC purity of 99.5% (verified May 2026). The directory is descriptive (these are labs that have processed community-submitted tests) rather than endorsing — Peptigrity does not formally accredit any laboratory, which is precisely why a buyer-side evaluation framework matters. Most competitor articles on this topic come from peptide vendors with financial interest in directing readers toward favorable lab relationships. The framework below is the independent equivalent.

How do you tell if a peptide testing lab is trustworthy?

A trustworthy peptide testing lab meets four criteria: it is accredited to a recognized international standard (most commonly ISO/IEC 17025:2017), discloses its analytical methodology and equipment, operates independently of any peptide vendor's financial control, and provides a public verification mechanism for its certificates of analysis. Accreditation alone is not sufficient — the lab's scope of accreditation must cover peptide purity testing specifically. The single most reliable starting point is verifying the accreditation directly in the relevant body's directory; this takes approximately 15 minutes. A fifth structural verification layer, available only on platforms that maintain cross-vendor public databases (Peptigrity, Finnrick), lets buyers cross-reference the same lab's CoAs against other labs' results for the same compound across many vendors.

The four-pillar framework works in practice because each pillar addresses a different failure mode that produces untrustworthy CoAs. Accreditation addresses the question of whether the lab's analytical methods have been independently validated by an external body — without it, the lab's claims about its own competence are self-reported. Methodology disclosure addresses whether the lab is using HPLC and mass spectrometry at the gold-standard level, or shortcuts that produce cheaper but less reliable results. Independence addresses the conflict-of-interest problem: a lab financially dependent on a peptide vendor has structural pressure to report favorable results. Public verification addresses fabrication risk: a CoA whose authenticity can be confirmed via the lab's own portal or QR code is meaningfully harder to forge than one that requires trusting the vendor's word.

The four pillars are sequential rather than independent. Accreditation without methodology disclosure leaves you uncertain about which methods were used. Methodology with no independence leaves the conflict-of-interest problem intact. Independence with no verification mechanism leaves fabrication risk open. Trustworthy labs satisfy all four. The remainder of this article walks through each pillar in detail, the red flags that indicate failure, and the most-cited labs the research peptide community has converged on.

What does ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation actually mean (and what it doesn't)?

ISO/IEC 17025:2017 is the international standard for the general requirements of testing and calibration laboratories — the global benchmark for analytical lab competence across pharmaceutical, environmental, food safety, and forensic applications. The most important nuance is one that competitor articles consistently miss: ISO 17025 accreditation is not blanket. It is specific to the test methods and matrices listed in the laboratory's scope of accreditation. A lab accredited for heavy metals analysis is not automatically accredited for peptide purity by HPLC, and treating those as equivalent is the most common verification mistake.

The Care Europe regulatory advisory documented this directly in March 2026: brands routinely submit regulatory dossiers with test data from labs whose accreditation expired 18 months ago, or whose scope doesn't cover the specific test method used. The data gets rejected, the testing has to be redone at substantial cost, and weeks or months are lost. The same scope-mismatch risk applies to peptide buyers evaluating CoAs — a CoA from an "ISO 17025-accredited lab" means nothing if the accreditation scope doesn't include peptide HPLC purity testing for the matrix and method at hand. Verifying scope properly takes about 15 minutes; skipping it can mean trusting test results whose underlying credentials don't apply.

The 15-minute verification step is straightforward once you know which accreditation body to consult. Different countries have different national accreditation bodies, all coordinated under the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement. The table below lists the directories you'll actually use.

Five practical verification steps work for any lab in any jurisdiction. First, identify the relevant accreditation body for the lab's country of operation. Second, search the body's online directory by lab name or accreditation number. Third, download the lab's scope-of-accreditation document — this is the document that lists what the lab is actually accredited to test. Fourth, confirm the specific test method (HPLC purity quantification for peptides, LC-MS identity confirmation) is explicitly listed in the scope, along with the matrix (synthetic peptide, biological sample, etc.). Fifth, verify the accreditation has not expired — typical ISO 17025 accreditation runs on a four-year cycle with annual surveillance audits, and 18-month-expired accreditations are common enough to deserve an explicit check.

Three related accreditations sometimes appear alongside or in place of ISO 17025. ISO 15189:2022 is the medical laboratory standard — applicable to clinical labs but less directly relevant to research peptide testing. GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) applies to preclinical safety studies and is sometimes claimed by labs serving pharmaceutical research. GMP/cGMP applies primarily to peptide synthesis and manufacturing rather than independent testing labs. FDA registration is different from accreditation — it indicates the lab is registered for pharmaceutical-industry work, not that any specific method has been externally validated. For research peptide testing specifically, ISO/IEC 17025:2017 with scope covering HPLC purity and LC-MS identity is the relevant benchmark; the other accreditations are useful supplements but don't substitute for it. Our peptide purity standards guide covers the threshold-and-method side of this in more depth.

A final practical note: many peptide testing labs do not advertise their accreditation status prominently on their websites. This is a yellow flag, not a red flag — it may reflect a lab serving primarily commercial research clients rather than retail customers — but it warrants asking the lab directly before submitting samples or trusting CoAs. If the lab declines to share its accreditation number or scope-of-accreditation document when asked, that itself is the answer.

How important is independence from peptide vendors?

Independence from peptide vendors is the second pillar of the four-pillar framework because vendor-controlled testing labs face the same fundamental conflict of interest that drove the global pharmaceutical industry to mandate independent verification: a lab with financial dependency on the seller of the products it tests has structural pressure to report favorable results. Genuinely independent labs test across multiple vendors, disclose ownership and personnel publicly, and maintain consistent pricing without dependency-creating volume relationships. The cross-vendor public database model, used by platforms like Peptigrity and Finnrick, adds a structural verification layer that no single lab's CoA can provide alone.

Three forms of vendor-lab relationships create the independence problem. Vendor-owned labs are operated by the peptide seller itself; CoAs from these labs are not third-party verification regardless of how the lab is branded. Vendor-affiliated labs are technically independent on paper but receive most of their business from a single vendor; the financial dependency creates implicit pressure even without formal ownership. Vendor-recommended labs appear in vendor marketing as "the lab we use" with no other reason for the recommendation provided; the relationship may be legitimate, but it deserves separate verification.

What genuine independence looks like in practice covers four observable signals. The lab tests across multiple vendors rather than concentrating its volume on one. The lab maintains public CoAs from multiple shops without preferential reporting. Lab personnel and ownership are disclosed publicly — named PhD chemists, identifiable analytical specialists, transparent corporate structure. Pricing is consistent across vendors — no volume discounts so steep that they create dependency.

The cross-vendor public database model adds a fifth structural layer that single-lab CoAs cannot provide. Platforms like Peptigrity (27 labs, 5,336 tests across 196 shops as of May 2026) and Finnrick (over 4,500 samples from 169+ vendors) make independence empirically verifiable: a lab's results can be cross-referenced against other labs' results for the same compound across many vendors. A lab that consistently reports higher purity than other labs for the same vendor's batches is a structural anomaly worth investigating. A lab whose CoAs appear in the database alongside CoAs from many other labs, with consistent purity patterns across vendors, is producing results that survive cross-comparison.

The Peptigrity editorial position is explicit on this point. The platform sells no peptides, has no affiliate relationships with any vendor, and does not formally accredit or endorse any lab in its directory. The 27 labs are listed because community-submitted CoAs from them have been verified; the listing is descriptive ("this lab has processed tests on the platform") rather than endorsing. The directory page itself states: "Always verify the lab's credentials, accreditation status, and methodology directly with the laboratory before submitting samples." This article is the framework for doing exactly that.

What analytical methods should a peptide testing lab use?

The gold-standard methodology for peptide testing combines HPLC for purity and mass spectrometry for identity confirmation. High-Performance Liquid Chromatography measures what fraction of the sample is the target peptide versus everything else; mass spectrometry verifies the target peptide's molecular weight matches the labeled compound. Either method alone is insufficient — HPLC tells you a fraction is pure without confirming what the pure compound is; mass spectrometry confirms identity without measuring the purity level HPLC quantifies. The combination is the minimum acceptable methodology for trustworthy peptide certificates of analysis.

Six methods cover most of what a trustworthy testing lab should offer. The table below maps each to what it measures, when it's needed, and the relevant industry standard.

Four method-related signals that separate trustworthy labs

Four signals separate trustworthy labs from less rigorous ones. First, method validation documentation — a trustworthy lab can show its test methods have been validated for specificity, accuracy, precision, linearity, range, detection limit, quantification limit, and robustness. The methods aren't just "we use HPLC"; they're documented procedures with established performance characteristics. Second, equipment disclosure — the CoA or lab profile should identify specific instruments used (e.g., Agilent 1260 Infinity II HPLC, Thermo Q Exactive MS, Waters Acquity UPLC); this allows external assessment of the lab's analytical capability. Third, raw chromatogram and spectrum availability — the lab provides the actual HPLC trace and MS spectrum on the CoA, not just summary numbers; this is what lets a knowledgeable reader verify the result independently. Fourth, clear quantification limits — the lab states the minimum amount it can detect and the minimum amount it can quantify; values reported above these limits are reliable, values at or below are not.

What's not sufficient as methodology disclosure

What's specifically NOT sufficient as methodology disclosure: "in-house testing" claims without third-party verification, "third-party tested" without naming the lab, "GMP-certified" without specifying which methods and which scope, or "HPLC purity ≥99%" without showing the chromatogram. Our how to read peptide lab test results guide covers the reading skills for HPLC and mass spec output specifically, and the peptide endotoxin testing and LAL assay guide covers the endotoxin side in depth.

How do you verify a CoA is real and not fabricated?

Verifying that a certificate of analysis is real — that the lab actually issued the document and the results are not fabricated — is the practical capstone of lab trustworthiness evaluation. The strongest verification mechanism is the lab's own public portal: a QR code on the CoA links to the lab's website, where entering the unique code returns the original test result for cross-comparison with what the vendor presented. Janoshik Labs pioneered this in the peptide-testing space; an increasing number of major labs now offer the same.

Four verification methods exist, from strongest to weakest. Direct verification via the lab's public portal is the strongest — entering the CoA number or scanning the QR code returns the original test result. Janoshik (QR-coded CoAs with online lookup), Optima Labs (UK-based verification portal), and Freedom Diagnostics Testing all offer this; an increasing share of the broader analytical-testing industry has adopted similar systems. Direct email verification works when no portal exists — contact the lab using contact information from the lab's official website (never from the CoA itself, which could be forged) and ask whether CoA number X was issued for sample Y on date Z. Cross-platform verification uses Peptigrity's lab tests database to search for the same batch number and compare what other vendors' tests of the same batch show; consistent results across multiple platforms make manipulation harder. Internal CoA consistency checks are the weakest standalone but useful as a sanity layer — batch number on CoA matches the vial, test date precedes the vial's "tested" claim, and lab name and contact info match the lab's official website.

What fabricated CoAs look like in practice — the patterns to watch for — are covered in depth in our red flags in peptide certificates of analysis guide. The most common patterns: "lab" email domains that don't match the lab's actual website, recycled CoAs across multiple batches (same chromatogram with different vial dates), HPLC chromatograms with cropped or blurred peaks, mass spectra that don't show the labeled molecular weight, missing batch numbers, missing test dates, and missing lab signatures. Any single pattern can sometimes be innocent; two or more in combination strongly suggest fabrication.

The QR-code revolution is the single most consequential development in peptide CoA verification over the past two years. A growing number of labs — Janoshik first, now Optima Labs, Freedom Diagnostics, and others — embed a unique QR code on each CoA that links to the lab's public verification portal. The buyer scans the code or enters the number on the lab's website; the system returns the original test result. This eliminates the fabrication risk by removing the need to trust the vendor as the intermediary — the buyer verifies directly. Our Janoshik analytical location and testing guide covers the Janoshik verification workflow specifically; the same logic applies to any lab that has adopted the QR-portal model.

Some legitimate smaller labs do not have public verification infrastructure — building and maintaining the system has real cost, and labs serving primarily commercial research clients may not see the need. Absence of QR-code verification is a yellow flag, not a red flag; compensate by direct email verification before trusting CoAs from labs without portals.

Does the lab's country of origin matter?

Country of origin matters less than accreditation scope and methodology disclosure. A well-accredited Czech lab is more trustworthy than an unaccredited US lab. The International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation Mutual Recognition Arrangement (ILAC MRA) means accreditation from any ILAC signatory body is mutually recognized across other signatory bodies — an A2LA-accredited US lab and a Polish-accredited Polish lab have equivalent international recognition under the framework. Peptigrity's directory spans four countries — USA, Czech Republic, Poland, broader Europe — precisely because country alone is not the trust signal.

The four-country landscape on Peptigrity covers most of the research peptide testing market. The USA holds the largest concentration of Peptigrity-tracked labs (roughly 20 of 27), with A2LA and ANAB as primary accreditation bodies, FDA-registered analytical labs available, and a strong methodology-transparency culture in the major operators (Freedom Diagnostics Testing, Vanguard Laboratory, Chromate, BioRegen). The Czech Republic hosts two highly-active labs — Janoshik Labs (the most-cited independent peptide lab globally) and Liquilabs — drawing on the strong central European analytical chemistry tradition. Poland contributes Analiza Białek and Lab4Tox, with growing peptide-testing capacity under Polish Centre for Accreditation oversight. Croatia is represented by Uzorak (newer to the directory, no tests yet).

What actually matters when evaluating a lab in any country is the same four-pillar framework: accreditation under the relevant national body (verifiable in that body's directory), methodology disclosure, independence from vendors, and public verification mechanisms. Czech and Polish labs are not categorically "better" or "worse" than US labs; they are accredited under different national bodies that participate in the same ILAC framework. The relevant practical questions are whether the lab offers English-language CoAs (most reputable labs do), whether the shipping logistics from your location work (samples are small and stable; international shipping is routine), and whether the methodology and accreditation hold up to scrutiny.

What's NOT a relevant concern when evaluating a lab's country: language of the CoA (English is industry standard at reputable labs), shipping distance (peptide samples ship internationally without issue), or community perceptions that "US labs are better" by default (the regulatory framework is equivalent under ILAC MRA, and Janoshik in the Czech Republic is the most-cited independent peptide lab in the global research community precisely because the country-of-origin signal is weaker than competing trust signals). What IS a relevant concern: jurisdictions where accreditation enforcement is weak, labs claiming accreditation that can't be verified in any recognized directory, and labs operating in countries without ILAC MRA participation.

What red flags should you watch for?

Six red flags consistently identify untrustworthy peptide testing labs: no accreditation disclosure or unverifiable accreditation, missing verification mechanism on the certificates of analysis, vendor-ownership or vendor-exclusive testing relationships, suspiciously cheap pricing, missing equipment or personnel disclosure, and refusal to perform batch-specific testing. Any one of these alone may be explained; two or more in combination indicate the lab is not operating as a genuinely independent third-party verifier. The pricing red flag is the single most reliable signal — legitimate peptide testing requires capital equipment and trained personnel that under-$100 testing simply cannot economically support.

Red flag 1: No accreditation disclosure

The lab doesn't advertise ISO 17025 or equivalent status, doesn't appear in any accreditation body directory, and declines to share scope-of-accreditation documents when asked directly. The 15-minute verification step covered earlier becomes impossible because there's nothing to verify against.

Red flag 2: No public verification mechanism

CoAs have no QR code, no portal lookup, and the lab does not respond to direct email verification requests. Fabrication risk is structurally elevated when the only path to verifying authenticity routes through the vendor that sold the product.

Red flag 3: Vendor ownership or exclusivity

The lab tests products only from one peptide vendor; the vendor markets it as "their lab" or "our partner lab"; pricing is highly favorable for that specific vendor. This is third-party testing in name only.

Red flag 4: Suspiciously cheap pricing

$50 per test when the industry standard is $200 to $1,200. This deserves explicit explanation because competitor articles avoid it. Legitimate peptide testing requires significant capital equipment ($100,000+ for HPLC, $300,000+ for high-resolution mass spectrometry), trained personnel (typically PhD chemists or experienced analytical specialists), and method-validation overhead. Sub-$100 testing economically cannot support all three. The most common explanations for $50 "testing": (a) outsourcing to an unaccredited contract lab without disclosure, (b) automated identity-only testing without purity quantification, or (c) "testing" that's actually just receiving the vendor's claim and reprinting it on lab letterhead. Real third-party peptide testing typically costs $200 to $500 per simple HPLC + MS panel and $400 to $1,200+ for full panels including endotoxin, sterility, and heavy metals. Academic core facilities at major universities sometimes offer testing at $200 to $1,000 per sample.

Red flag 5: Missing equipment or personnel disclosure

The lab refuses to specify which HPLC instrument or MS platform is used. "Lab team" is described generically without named PhD chemists or identifiable analytical specialists. Operational transparency is the prerequisite to all four trust pillars; without it, evaluation is impossible.

Red flag 6: Refusal to perform batch-specific testing

The lab only offers "representative sample" CoAs or generic compound testing without lot-specific results. This defeats the purpose of independent verification because the document doesn't attest to the specific batch the buyer is purchasing.

Three additional patterns deserve flagging even though they appear less frequently. Batch-swapping patterns show up when multiple vendors' batches have suspiciously similar chromatograms — the same CoA is being recycled or templated across products it shouldn't apply to. Country mismatched with accreditation body appears when a lab claims to be in country X but lists accreditation from country Y's body without ILAC reciprocity documentation. Lab email domains that don't match the official website are the textbook fabrication signal. Our how to spot a scam peptide shop guide covers the vendor-side scam patterns that often correlate with these lab red flags.

Which peptide testing labs are most trusted in the research community?

No single peptide testing lab is universally "best" — the right lab depends on the test panel needed, country preference, turnaround time, and pricing. That said, the research peptide community has converged on a small number of independent labs as most-cited and most-trusted: Janoshik Labs in the Czech Republic (most-cited internationally, with QR-coded CoA verification and 5 to 10 business day turnaround) and Freedom Diagnostics Testing in the USA (the highest-volume independent lab tracked by Peptigrity, with online verification). The Peptigrity directory tracks 27 independent labs across 4 countries — readers can apply the four-pillar trust framework from this article to evaluate any of them.

The top five labs by tests processed on Peptigrity (verified May 2026) cover the majority of cross-vendor testing volume tracked on the platform:

• Freedom Diagnostics Testing — USA-based, 1,895 tests processed. The highest-volume independent peptide testing lab tracked on Peptigrity. HPLC purity and MS/MS identity confirmation; online CoA verification.

• Janoshik Labs — Czech Republic, 1,632 tests processed. The most-cited independent peptide testing lab in the global research community; often described as the "gold standard" within the space. QR-coded CoAs with online verification portal, 5 to 10 business day turnaround. Our Janoshik analytical location and testing guide covers the lab's methodology and CoA format in depth.

• Vanguard Laboratory — USA-based, 387 tests processed. Established methodology; well-regarded US option for buyers preferring domestic testing.

• Chromate — USA-based, 381 tests processed. Established analytical methods.

• BioRegen — USA-based, 241 tests processed. Testing partner for several major peptide vendors.

The platform-wide data tells a broader story than any single lab's profile can. The average HPLC purity across all 5,336 tracked tests is 99.5%, which provides a benchmark for evaluating any individual CoA — purity claims significantly below this average warrant scrutiny, and purity claims at or above are consistent with the cross-vendor norm. The 4-country footprint means most major peptide compounds have been tested across at least 2 jurisdictions, supporting the cross-platform verification approach. The 27-lab directory itself is the practical destination for applying the framework — pick any lab on the directory, run the four-pillar evaluation, and the framework produces a defensible verdict.

The honest framing on Janoshik specifically deserves separate mention because the "gold standard" framing is so common in community discussion. Janoshik is the most-cited and most-trusted independent peptide testing lab globally, with empirical support from QR-coded CoA verification, consistent community trust over many years, and over 1,600 tests tracked on Peptigrity alone. Reasonable users can prefer other labs for legitimate reasons — faster US turnaround, different test panel availability, different pricing — and that's fine. The "gold standard" framing supports Janoshik as a reliable choice; it does not support Janoshik as the only right answer. The four-pillar framework lets buyers evaluate any lab on its merits rather than defaulting to a single brand.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is ISO 17025 enough, or do I need a stricter accreditation?

ISO/IEC 17025:2017 is the international gold standard for analytical lab competence and is sufficient for evaluating peptide testing labs. Stricter accreditations (GLP, GMP/cGMP, FDA registration) apply to pharmaceutical manufacturing contexts that go beyond what most peptide-buyer use cases require. What matters more than the accreditation level is the scope — verify that the specific test method (HPLC purity, LC-MS identity) is included in the lab's scope-of-accreditation document. A lab with ISO 17025 covering peptide HPLC purity is more useful than a lab with GLP accreditation in an unrelated scope.

How long should a legitimate peptide test take?

Typical turnaround for HPLC + mass spec testing is 5 to 10 business days (Janoshik's published range and a reasonable industry standard). Some US labs offer 3 to 5 day rush service at higher cost. Anything claiming same-day testing is likely automated identity-only confirmation without full purity quantification — the chromatography simply takes time to run properly. Anything taking more than 3 weeks suggests a backlog problem rather than methodology depth.

How much should I expect to pay for an independent peptide test?

$200 to $500 for a basic HPLC + LC-MS panel; $400 to $1,200+ for full panels including endotoxin (LAL), sterility, and heavy metals. $50 to $100 tests are a red flag — the underlying capital equipment costs ($100,000+ for HPLC, $300,000+ for high-resolution MS), trained personnel salaries, and method-validation overhead cannot be sustained at that price point. Academic core facilities at major universities sometimes offer testing at $200 to $1,000 per sample with longer turnaround.

Is Janoshik really the gold standard, or is that just community marketing?

Janoshik IS the most-cited independent peptide testing lab globally — the "gold standard" framing is supported by genuine consistent results across the research community, QR-coded online CoA verification, and over 1,600 tests tracked on Peptigrity alone. That said, reasonable users can prefer other labs for specific reasons (faster US turnaround, different test panel availability, different pricing). The honest framing is "most-cited and most-trusted" rather than "the only right answer." The four-pillar trust framework lets you evaluate any lab on its merits.

Should I send my own sample to a third-party lab to verify a vendor's CoA?

Yes for high-value purchases, evaluation of a new vendor, or when experimental results are inconsistent with what the labeled compound should produce. Third-party verification at $200 to $500 per sample is meaningful when validating a $200+ vial of peptide; less worth it for inexpensive vials. The how to test peptides guide covers the submission process end-to-end — choose a lab from the 27-lab directory, contact them directly, ship a 1-5 mg sample, receive a CoA.

Are vendor-owned labs ever trustworthy?

In pharmaceutical manufacturing, yes — vendor in-house QC labs operating under GMP are trustworthy because the entire regulatory system audits the testing process. In the research peptide space without that regulatory framework, vendor-owned labs are not independent third-party verification, and their CoAs should be treated as vendor self-reporting rather than independent verification. Independent third-party testing is the standard for trustworthy verification of research-grade peptides.

How can I check a peptide lab's accreditation status?

Five steps, approximately 15 minutes total. First, find the relevant accreditation body for the lab's jurisdiction (A2LA in USA, UKAS in UK, DAkkS in Germany — see the directory table earlier in this article). Second, search the body's online directory by lab name or accreditation number. Third, download the lab's scope-of-accreditation document. Fourth, confirm the specific test method (HPLC purity quantification for peptides, LC-MS identity confirmation) is listed in the scope. Fifth, verify the accreditation has not expired — typical 4-year cycle with annual surveillance audits. If the lab declines to provide its accreditation number when asked, that itself is the answer.

This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical, legal, or analytical-chemistry advice. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and related accreditation standards are international frameworks; specific implementation varies by jurisdiction. Always verify a lab's accreditation status, scope, and methodology directly with the laboratory and the relevant accreditation body before submitting samples or relying on certificates of analysis. Peptigrity is an independent review platform and does not sell peptides, take affiliate commission from any vendor or testing laboratory, or formally accredit or endorse any laboratory in its directory. The 27-lab listing is descriptive — these are labs that have processed community-submitted tests on the platform — rather than endorsing.