What I have: 98.2% · Janoshik · 97.9% · PeptideMeter.
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?
98.2 and 97.9 are 0.3 percentage points apart, which sounds small until you restate it as impurity. Janoshik is leaving 1.8 per cent of the detected area unassigned and PeptideMeter 2.1 per cent — a factor of 1.17 between them. The impurity fraction is the quantity that moves when a method changes, and it is the one worth arguing about; the headline is just its complement. Comparable means same column chemistry, same gradient slope, same detection wavelength, same integration convention. Until you have those four from both laboratories, 98.2 and 97.9 are two measurements of slightly different quantities that happen to share a unit.
It helps to be literal here: the method matters more than the vial, which is why specifying a method buys you far more than changing suppliers does.
Mobile phase additive choice affects ionisation and peak shape — TFA gives sharp peaks but suppresses mass spectrometry signal, formic acid gives worse peaks but preserves signal.
Stated carefully, column pore size affects mass transfer — a 100 Angstrom packing on a 5 kDa peptide restricts diffusion, broadening the peak and potentially hiding small impurities in the shoulders.
Inter-laboratory studies on identical peptide material routinely find half-a-per-cent to a full-per-cent spreads in reported purity on the same sample.
The practical summary: ask for the chromatogram and the method, and ignore the headline number until you have both.
Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.
Shop standardsRead the chromatogram before you read the number, because the number without the trace is not a measurement, it is a claim.
Retention time is sequence-specific and method-specific, so comparing your result to a supplier value using a different method is meaningless without method documentation.
Integration of the shoulder — whether you use perpendicular drop or tangent skim — determines what area gets assigned to the main peak versus the impurity table.
The caveat is that purity without identity is only half an answer — a high purity does not mean the peak is actually what you think it is.
Compare purity within a single laboratory on the same method, never across laboratories.
edited 12 Jun 2025 by j_wierzbicki — updated for the 2026 guidance change
The honest answer is that the achievable range of plausible purity figures for a given vial is wider than most people expect.
Gradient slope controls resolution, and gentler slopes resolve co-eluting impurities into separate peaks — so the better method reports the worse purity number.
Tailing factor measures peak shape, and a badly tailing peak spreads into the region where small impurities live, forcing tangent-skim integration that assigns tail area to the main peak.
The ICH Q3A impurity thresholds and the relevant pharmacopoeial chapters all specify method validation requirements that almost no research-grade certificate claims to meet.
If you are ranking vendors, specify a method and have all samples tested at the same place.
The short answer is that two competent laboratories on identical material will disagree, and the disagreement is almost always explainable by method differences.
Buffer versus acid in the mobile phase changes the ionisation state of basic and acidic residues, shifting retention and selectivity — same vial, potentially different separation.
I would be careful about over-reading a single measurement — treat it as a data point, not as ground truth.
If you only pay for one test, pay for quantified content. Purity is the number everyone quotes and content is the number that changes what you do.
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.