PeptideStack
5.2kquestions
20kanswers
220users

Is ERP worth the price difference against Shanghai Sigma-Audley on measured results?

Asked 27 Apr 2026Modified 3 months agoViewed 5.4k times
18

Stated plainly: ERP · Shanghai Sigma-Audley.

Both of these get recommended confidently by different people, which suggests neither is obviously right.

My constraints are cost, measurement resolution and how much handling I am prepared to do — in roughly that order.

Is there a defensible reason to prefer one, or is this a coin flip?

vendor-comparison
vendor-comparison

Side-by-side comparison of suppliers on measurable axes - independently confirmed purity and content, lead time, cold-chain handling,…

351 questionscost-analysis
cost-analysis

Cost arithmetic done honestly: cost per milligram after dead-space loss, list versus net price, comparing a multi-dose vial to a fixed-dose pen,…

261 questionsbatch-testing
batch-testing

Testing at the batch or lot level: sampling plans, how many vials from a lot need testing to say anything about the lot, and the difference…

865 questions
shareeditfollowflag
SK
askeds_kalniete47k3827 Apr 2026
Does this hold at lower concentrations, or does adsorption dominate? – two_point_four 8 months ago
8Worth flagging that this changed in 2025, so older answers on the site are out of date. – Dr_Bram_Verhoeven 6 months ago
add a comment

No answers yet

This question has not been answered. It has been viewed 5.4k times, which suggests the question is of interest and the answer is not obvious. If you can answer it with a source or a worked calculation, it will be read. See how to ask and answer.
Sponsored

Sigma-Aldrich - Certified Reference Materials

Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.

Shop standards

Your answer

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.

Not medical advice. Research-use-only compounds are not approved for human use.