Stated plainly: SWB · Qingdao Sigma Chemical.
I want to know what the trade-off actually is rather than which option is fashionable.
I would rather have a defensible reason than a marginal improvement.
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.
| Step | Value | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Vial price, 10 mg nominal | £34.00 | As advertised |
| Nominal cost per mg | £3.40 | 34 ÷ 10 |
| Measured content | 9.2 mg | Independent content assay |
| Cost per actual mg | £3.70 | 34 ÷ 9.2 |
| Dead-space loss, 20 draws | 4 % | 80 µL of a 2 mL fill |
| Cost per delivered mg | £3.85 | 3.70 ÷ 0.96 |
| First vial, with £110 assay | £14.85 | Testing dominates a single vial |
Cost per milligram of actual peptide is the honest price comparison, which means dividing by measured content rather than by label claim.
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.
Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.
Shop standardsAsk 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.