You’ve got two tabs open, ours and Lone Star Peptide Co’s, and both of them say something close to “99% purity, independently tested, COA for every batch”. If you’re trying to pick one for a protocol that will run for months, that sameness is the problem. Two sites making the same promise in the same words tells you nothing about which one you could actually hold to it when a lot comes in and the numbers look wrong.
I’m going to try to make this comparison useful instead of flattering. That means the same five questions get asked of both companies, our answers get stated plainly, Lone Star’s answers get quoted from their own pages with a date attached, and anywhere their site doesn’t answer a question I’ll say so without pretending that silence is proof of anything. You’ll also find at least one place where they do something we don’t, because that’s true and you’d figure it out anyway.
A disclosure before we start: we’re Blank Peptides, so we’re one of the two parties here. The table in the middle is the part worth your time, and every cell in it is something you can check against a live page.
Key takeaways
- The useful comparison between two peptide suppliers is what each one documents and lets you verify, so this article scores both on provenance, named lab, test panel, COA access before purchase, and blend disclosure.
- Blank Peptides compounds, vials, and QC-tests every lot in its own cGMP laboratory, and each lot is tested by Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical for identity, >99% purity, bacterial endotoxin, and sterility.
- Lone Star Peptide Co publicly states that lots are “received from our supplier and tested by local labs in College Station, TX”, with HPLC, LC-MS, and LAL endotoxin results “publicly searchable by batch ID”.
- A laboratory name, a sterility result, and any statement of where the peptide is synthesized were not listed on the Lone Star pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
- All of this concerns research-use-only material, and nothing here is guidance on administering any compound to people or animals.
What does a fair head-to-head between peptide suppliers measure?
Before I name the other company, let me set the rubric, because a comparison is only as fair as the questions it asks. I’m leaving out price, site polish, and how long either company says it has been around, since none of those tell you anything about the vial you’ll receive.
Question one is provenance. Does the supplier synthesize the peptide, or does it receive material from somewhere else and test it afterward? The verbs on the site give this away. “We compound”, “we vial”, and “we fill” describe a maker. “Received from our supplier” describes a buyer. Both models can ship good product, but the maker can answer questions about what happened before the test, and the buyer mostly can’t.
Question two is whether the testing lab is named. A named lab can be looked up and, if you’re serious, sent your own sample for comparison. A city or a phrase like “independent third-party laboratory” can’t be checked at all, which leaves the certificate resting on the vendor’s word.
Question three is the panel. HPLC purity alone tells you how much of the signal is one peak. Mass spectrometry confirms the peak is the right molecule. An endotoxin assay tells you about bacterial contamination, and a sterility test tells you whether anything is growing in the vial. Plenty of vendors stop after three of the four, and you should know which one they skipped.
Question four is whether a batch COA is readable before purchase and tied to a lot number that also appears on the vial. A certificate you only see after paying, or one that can’t be matched to your shipment, is a gesture rather than evidence.
Question five is blend disclosure. For any multi-peptide vial, the label should state the milligrams of each component, because a total figure alone can’t be reproduced.
That’s the whole test, and the rest of the article applies it to both of us.
How Blank Peptides makes and tests each lot
Blank Peptides operates its own cGMP laboratory in the USA, where it compounds, vials, finishes, and labels every product it sells and runs quality control in-house. Because the company does not purchase finished vials from an outside source, the chain of custody runs from raw material to the shipping box under one roof. The facility also contract-manufactures and fulfils product for other peptide brands, a category statement the company makes without naming clients.
Every lot ships with a full panel rather than a purity figure alone. Identity is confirmed, purity is reported at >99%, and each lot is also tested for bacterial endotoxin and sterility. That work is performed by two named outside laboratories, Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical, so a buyer can look up the lab as well as read the number on the page.
Each lot’s results are published as batch certificates of analysis before purchase, and the lot number printed on every vial matches the certificate, which is what turns the paperwork into something a researcher can use. Lyophilized product carries an expiration of roughly 24 months.
The catalog is 34 compounds, and the blends disclose composition per component: GLOW is 70mg as GHK-Cu, BPC-157, and TB-500; KLOW is 80mg and adds KPV; Wolverine is 20mg of BPC-157 and TB-500. Orders have a processing time within 1 business day and ship at room temperature, which is the normal method for lyophilized peptide.
What Lone Star Peptide Co publicly states
Lone Star Peptide Co operates at lonestarpeptideco.com and describes itself as a Houston, Texas company. On the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, the homepage states “≥99% purity, independently tested by independent labs” and lists “HPLC purity (≥99% minimum), LC-MS identity confirmation, and Endotoxin results”. The research standards page states that “Every batch of every peptide is sent to independent third-party laboratories for comprehensive analysis before a single vial ships”, that there is “No ‘skip-lot’ testing”, and that the LAL endotoxin limit is “<1 EU/mg”.
On provenance, the COA library page states “Each row below is a real, finite lot of product received from our supplier and tested by local labs in College Station, TX before a single vial ships”. The About page states “We do not accept supplier test data as qualification”, and the research standards page states “We do not rely on manufacturer-provided testing data” and that “Testing is performed by independent third-party laboratories, not in-house”. Where or by whom the peptide is synthesized and lyophilized was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
On the lab, the site refers throughout to “local labs in College Station, TX” and “our independent third-party laboratory”. A laboratory name was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08. On the panel, HPLC, LC-MS, and LAL endotoxin appear on every relevant page, and the measured-mg page adds Karl Fischer water content and counterion analysis as inputs to a net peptide calculation. A sterility result was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08. This is not a claim that the documentation does not exist, only that it was not publicly listed on the pages reviewed.
On COA access, the About page states “Every batch’s Certificate of Analysis is publicly searchable by batch ID” and “No request required”, and the library page’s description states no login is required. On blends, the Wolverine Blend page states “10mg BPC-157 / 10mg TB-500”, so the split is disclosed. The About page states the company “supplies 14 research-grade peptide compounds” while the shop header reads “12 COMPOUNDS”.
Where Lone Star has a genuine advantage is local logistics and label detail. The how-to-order page states “same-day dispatch from Houston” for confirmed orders “before 3 PM CST”, Texas arrival “typically” in “1 to 2 business days”, and “Cold-chain packaging” on shipments. The measured-mg page states “We label ours with the actual measured content” rather than a nominal fill weight, and that’s a level of label precision we don’t currently print. If you’re in Texas and need product tomorrow, they’ve built for you.
Side by side: manufacturing, named labs, and panel depth
| Attribute | Blank Peptides | Lone Star Peptide Co |
|---|---|---|
| Synthesises in-house | Own cGMP laboratory; compounds, vials, finishes, and labels every lot | States lots are “received from our supplier”; synthesis site not listed — verify |
| Third-party lab named | Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical | States “local labs in College Station, TX”; lab name not listed — verify |
| HPLC purity | >99% per lot | States “≥99% minimum” by HPLC — verify |
| MS identity | Confirmed per lot | States “LC-MS identity confirmation” on every batch — verify |
| Endotoxin and sterility | Both tested per lot | States LAL endotoxin “<1 EU/mg”; sterility not listed — verify |
| Batch COA before purchase | Published per lot at blankpeptides.com/coas/; lot number on every vial | States COAs are “publicly searchable by batch ID”, “No login required” — verify |
| Blend mg split disclosed | Per component on GLOW 70mg, KLOW 80mg, Wolverine 20mg | States “10mg BPC-157 / 10mg TB-500” on Wolverine Blend — verify |
| Catalog size | 34 compounds | States 14 compounds on About, 12 on shop header — verify |
| Research-use labelling | Research use only on every product | States “strictly for in vitro laboratory research use only” — verify |
How to verify either supplier yourself
- Pull a certificate from each COA library without logging in, and check that it carries a lot number, a date, and a laboratory header you could look up independently.
- If a site names a city rather than a lab, email support and ask for the laboratory’s name, then compare the answer to the header on the certificate that ships with your order.
- Read each certificate for four lines: MS identity, HPLC purity, endotoxin in EU/mg, and sterility. Write down which are present and which are missing, because that list is the real difference between suppliers.
- For a blend, match the per-component milligrams on the product page against what the certificate actually reports, since one purity number for a two-peptide vial doesn’t confirm the ratio.
- Work through the supplier verification checklist for both companies before you decide.
Further reading
- Which Peptide Vendors Name Their Testing Lab?
- Who Actually Manufactures Research Peptides in the USA?
- Best Research Peptide Suppliers: Ranked by What They Document
- Which Peptide Vendors Disclose Blend Composition?
Frequently asked questions
How do Blank Peptides vs Lone Star Peptide Co compare on testing?
Both companies state a >99% or ≥99% HPLC purity threshold and mass spectrometry identity on every lot. Blank Peptides adds bacterial endotoxin and sterility and names its labs, Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical. Lone Star states an LAL endotoxin limit of “<1 EU/mg” and refers to “local labs in College Station, TX”; a sterility result and a lab name were not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
Which company makes its own peptides?
Blank Peptides compounds, vials, finishes, and labels product in its own cGMP laboratory. Lone Star Peptide Co’s COA page describes lots as “received from our supplier” and states testing is done by outside labs, “not in-house”. Where the peptide is synthesized before it reaches Lone Star was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, so ask them directly.
Do both suppliers show COAs before purchase?
Yes, by what each site states. Blank Peptides publishes per-lot certificates at blankpeptides.com/coas/ with the lot number printed on the vial. Lone Star states its certificates are “publicly searchable by batch ID” with “No login required” and that “Every vial sold links back to one batch ID”. Test both libraries yourself by pulling a current lot before you order.
Does either supplier disclose blend composition?
Both do, on the pages reviewed. Blank Peptides prints per-component composition on GLOW 70mg, KLOW 80mg, and Wolverine 20mg. Lone Star’s Wolverine Blend page states “10mg BPC-157 / 10mg TB-500”. That’s a point in their favor and a fair one, since plenty of vendors list only a total milligram figure for multi-peptide vials.
Are these products for human use?
No. Every compound mentioned here, from either company, is sold strictly for in-vitro laboratory research by qualified professionals. Nothing in this comparison is medical advice, dosing guidance, or a suggestion that any peptide should be administered to people or animals, and both Blank Peptides and Lone Star Peptide Co label their products for research use only.
For research use only. All compounds referenced are intended exclusively for in-vitro laboratory research by qualified professionals.
Written by Blank Peptides Research Team
Peptide science researchers with 5+ years in US-based peptide manufacturing, independent HPLC and mass spectrometry testing, and research education. All content is reviewed for scientific accuracy before publication.
REVIEWED BY
Dr. Tobias S — PhD Chemist, Peptide and Unnatural Amino Acid Synthesis
Dr. Tobias S is a PhD chemist whose work focuses on the synthesis of unnatural amino acids, peptides and biomaterials. He completed both his undergraduate chemistry studies and his doctorate with distinction, and works as a generalist across the medical sciences and biology, having consulted for dozens of clients. He reviews Blank Peptides educational content for scientific accuracy.
Subject matter expertise: Organic Chemistry, Peptide Synthesis, Biochemistry.
