Setup, so nobody has to ask: SGN · ERP · Norway.
I have used one of these for a while and I am considering switching, which requires a reason.
What I care about is reproducibility, because a result I cannot repeat is not useful to me.
So which one, and on what grounds?
Answer first: comparing suppliers is only meaningful if the comparison holds the laboratory, the method and the compound constant, and most published comparisons hold none of them.
To compare properly: order the same compound at the same nominal strength from each supplier, submit all samples to the same laboratory in the same submission if possible, and ask for the same test set on each.
The relevant detail is that sample size matters. One order each is an anecdote about six vials; three orders each over a year is the beginning of a comparison.
Content assay results across the published datasets vary considerably more between suppliers than purity does, which makes content the more discriminating axis.
The caveat is that a comparison is a snapshot of the lots compared, and lots change.
One laboratory, one method, one submission. Otherwise it is not a comparison.
HPLC purity, identity confirmation and quantified content on the vial you actually hold. Reports arrive with the chromatogram attached, not just a number.
Submit a sampleFounded 1998. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff and 200+ patents. The synthesis house behind a great many of the vials that get sent out for testing - batch-specific documentation with every order.
Visit GL BiochemThe short version: same compound, same laboratory, same method, ideally same week — otherwise you are comparing laboratories rather than suppliers.
Content is the more discriminating measurement than purity for supplier comparison, because purity clusters tightly among competent suppliers and content does not.
Cost per milligram of actual peptide is the honest price comparison, which means dividing by measured content rather than by label claim.
Gradient slope, column chemistry and detection wavelength all affect the reported purity figure, which is why the method section is the part that makes results comparable.
Price per milligram of measured peptide, not per milligram of label claim.
edited 7 Oct 2024 by deamidation_watch — added the citation requested in comments
Start by asking what you are optimising for, because cost per milligram, documentation depth and lead time do not have a common winner.
Lead time and lane behaviour are supplier properties too and are easier to compare than analytical ones, because they need no laboratory at all.
Publish the method with the result. A comparison without the laboratory named and the submission dates given is not reproducible by anyone.
Inter-laboratory spread on identical peptide material is routinely half a per cent to a per cent by RP-HPLC, which is the noise floor for any cross-laboratory comparison.
Name the laboratory and the dates or the comparison cannot be reproduced.
The honest answer is that most claimed differences between reputable suppliers are inside inter-laboratory noise.
Compare documentation on a fixed checklist rather than by impression: lot specificity, method section, chromatogram availability, quantified content, water and counter-ion figures, and whether the code is on the vial.
The ratings on this site are a community opinion average on a ten-point scale and are not reconciled with any other community's figures.
No supplier on this site pays for its position, and the storefront links are marked nofollow and sponsored.
Use a fixed documentation checklist rather than an impression.
The underlying point is that this is the question where methodology matters more than the conclusion.
Submitting to different laboratories introduces a method difference that commonly exceeds the supplier difference. Gradient slope alone can move a reported purity figure by a per cent in either direction.
The published aggregate datasets from Janoshik, Medutest and PeptideMeter are the closest thing to a systematic evidence base in this space, and the striking pattern across all three is that identity is almost always confirmed, purity is usually acceptable, and content is where the variance lives.
Comparisons drawn from different laboratories at different times are weaker evidence than most people treat them as.
Compare content, not purity. Purity clusters and content does not.
edited 8 Aug 2024 by greta_holzmann — removed a claim I could not source
Ask PeptideStack is a static archive. Posting is closed, but the norms are worth stating: answer the question that was asked, show your working, cite the trial or the certificate, and say plainly where the evidence runs out.