Tesamorelin × polarispeptides.com — lab test, April 2026
COA SPL-3438 matches Trust Pointe Analytics's public record. So this test doesn't rest on our review alone — the lab confirms it too.
NYEQFWGFDH3STest results
This is a purity and identity analysis. Sterility, endotoxins, and heavy metals were not screened — a high purity figure says nothing about those.
About this test
Label 10 mg · Lab measured 11.17 mg
112% of label, basis not stated — shown as printed. Reconstituted with 2 mL, a 50-unit draw holds 2.8 mg using the measured mass, against 2.5 mg on the label — 12% more.
One vial from this lot was weighed by the laboratory, not yours. This page reports what the certificate says; it does not recommend a dose.
| Report number | SPL-3438 |
|---|---|
| Portal lookup | ✓ Lab-verified |
| Checked | 4 Aug 2026date taken from the record, not from a logged check |
| Checked by | Peptigrity staff, against the lab's portal |
| PDF vs portal | Trust Pointe Analytics's portal shows validity only |
| Weight | Counts as one lab test |
Independent HPLC purity analysis of Tesamorelin from polarispeptides.com, performed by Trust Pointe Analytics on April 8, 2026. Reported purity: 99.15%. Net content: 11.17 mg against 10 mg labeled (112% of label). Tested content exceeds the labeled amount by 12%. Batch POL-TESA10-8. Sample source: shop-provided. Certificate of analysis attached.
Certificate of analysis
Other lots of Tesamorelin from polarispeptides.com
| Lot | Tested | Lab | Purity | vs label | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| POL-TESA10-9 | 29 Jun 2026 | Accumark Labs | 99.04% | 84% | Lab has no portal |
| POL-TESA10-7 | 16 Dec 2025 | Trust Pointe Analytics | 99.54% | 116% | Unverified |
| POL-TESA10-6 | 2 Nov 2025 | Trust Pointe Analytics | 99.1% | 117% | Unverified |
Batches this shop has published a certificate for, newest first. A lot whose printed value cannot identify a batch is not listed.
Have you tested this peptide?
Submit your third-party lab test to help the community verify purity claims. Every report is reviewed before publication.
Community discussion