If you’ve got Blank Peptides and Peptide Vault open in two tabs right now, you’ve probably already noticed how hard it is to tell them apart at a glance. Both say USA. Both say 99% purity. Both say third-party tested and research use only, and both sell a GLOW and a KLOW blend at prices that aren’t wildly different. The marketing layer of this industry has converged so completely that the words on the homepage have almost stopped carrying information.
So this comparison ignores the homepage claims and goes one layer down, to the documentation each vendor actually publishes. Who makes the product, and do they say so in plain verbs? Is there a named laboratory behind the “third-party tested” badge? Does the test panel cover identity, purity, endotoxin and sterility, or just purity? Can you open a lot-specific certificate before you spend money? And for the blends, do you get milligrams per component or just a list of ingredient names?
I’ll be straight with you about the source: this is written by Blank Peptides, so you should read our own section with the same suspicion you’d bring to anyone else’s. Every claim about Peptide Vault is quoted from its site as reviewed on 2026-09-08, and where something wasn’t there, I say that it wasn’t listed rather than that it doesn’t exist.
Key takeaways
- The useful comparison between two research peptide suppliers is what each one documents about provenance, its testing lab, its test panel, its batch certificates and its blend composition.
- Blank Peptides synthesizes, vials and QC-tests every lot in its own cGMP laboratory, names Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical as its testing labs, and publishes a full panel (identity, >99% purity, endotoxin, sterility) per lot.
- Peptide Vault, reviewed at peptidevaultlabs.com, states its products are “Made in the USA” and “Third-party batch tested” by HPLC and mass spectrometry, with a “≥99% Purity Standard” and a public COA library.
- On the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, Peptide Vault did not name a testing lab, did not list sterility testing, showed no downloadable certificates in its COA library, and did not list per-component mg for its blends.
- Both suppliers label their products for research use only; nothing here concerns anything other than in-vitro laboratory work.
What should you compare when two suppliers look the same?
Here’s the rubric I use, and I’d suggest using it on any pair of vendors, not just these two. Five questions, weighted roughly in this order.
Provenance comes first, because it decides how much the other four can mean. A supplier that synthesizes its own peptides controls the chain of custody from raw material to labelled vial and can answer for every step. A supplier that buys finished product can only pass along whatever documentation came with it. Read the about page for verbs. “We manufacture in our facility” is a provenance claim. “We supply” or “we source” is a distribution claim. Silence on the subject is worth noticing too.
Second, is the testing lab named? “Independent third-party testing” is a phrase, and phrases can’t be checked. A named lab can be looked up, contacted and asked whether a report number is genuine.
Third, how wide is the panel? Purity by HPLC is the minimum anyone publishes. Identity by mass spectrometry confirms the peak is the right molecule. Bacterial endotoxin and sterility tell you something about how the vial was filled, which purity can’t. For lyophilized research peptides, those four together are the set that lets you rule out the failure modes that matter.
Fourth, is a batch-specific certificate available before purchase, and does the lot number on it appear on the vial you receive? A specimen COA, or a table of figures with no document attached, doesn’t answer this.
Fifth, for blends, is the mg of each component disclosed? “Formulated with A, B and C” in a 70 mg vial could be any ratio, and a blend you can’t quantify is a blend you can’t replicate.
What I don’t compare is company age or domain age. It’s easy to look up and tells you nothing about the contents of a vial.
How Blank Peptides makes and tests each lot
Assessed against those five questions, Blank Peptides publishes an unusually complete chain of custody. The company runs its own cGMP laboratory in the USA and states that compounding, vialing, finishing, labelling and quality control all happen in-house, so the entity selling the vial is also the entity that made it. It also contract-manufactures and fulfils for other peptide brands, described only as a category of work without naming any client.
Testing is sent to two named laboratories, Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical, and each lot carries a full panel: identity, purity at >99%, bacterial endotoxin and sterility. That’s all four of the tests a buyer should expect for lyophilized material, from labs that can be contacted to confirm a report.
Certificates are published per lot as batch certificates of analysis, and the lot number on each certificate is printed on the corresponding vial, so the match can be made on receipt. Lyophilized product is given an expiration of about 24 months.
Blend composition is disclosed per component. GLOW is 70 mg of GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500; KLOW is 80 mg with KPV added; Wolverine is 20 mg of BPC-157 and TB-500. The catalog covers 34 compounds. Processing is stated as within one business day, and orders ship at room temperature, which is appropriate for lyophilized peptides and means there’s no cold-chain claim to check.
What Peptide Vault publicly states
One clarification before the details. “Peptide Vault” is a name shared by several unrelated storefronts, including UK and Australian ones. The site reviewed here is peptidevaultlabs.com, trading as Peptide Vault Labs and presenting as a US supplier. All observations below are from that site on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
On provenance, the homepage states products are “Made in the USA” and “Produced in a controlled U.S. facility under strict laboratory standards.” The about page states that the company “supplies research-grade peptides and laboratory materials to researchers, institutions, and analytical labs.” Whether that facility is owned by the company, or whether the company synthesizes the peptides itself, was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08. The verb used consistently is “supplies”.
On testing, the site states “Third-party batch tested” and refers to “independent laboratory testing” and “independent analytical documentation”. The COA library header states that “Every batch is third-party tested for identity, purity, and quantity by HPLC and mass spectrometry,” and a “≥99% Purity Standard” appears throughout. No laboratory was named on the homepage, quality page, FAQ, COA library or product pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
On certificates, the FAQ states that “Available Certificates of Analysis and batch documentation can be reviewed through our public COA library.” On the date reviewed, that library showed 21 rows with batch numbers in a PVL-prefixed format, purity figures between about 99.08% and 99.62%, and an endotoxin column reading “None”. Sterility was not among the listed parameters. No downloadable certificate was found behind any row, and a notice at the foot of the page described the batch numbers and results as “illustrative placeholders” to be replaced “with real Certificate of Analysis data and downloadable PDFs before launch”. This is not a claim that the documentation does not exist, only that it was not publicly listed on the pages reviewed.
On blends, Peptide Vault lists four: KLOW at 80 mg ($135), GLOW ($95; shown as 80 mg on the shop grid and 70 mg on its product page), CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin (10 mg) and BPC-157 + TB-500 (10 mg). The KLOW page states it is “formulated with BPC-157, TB-500, GHK-Cu, and KPV” and the GLOW page names BPC-157, TB-500 and GHK-Cu. Per-component milligrams were not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
Credit where it’s earned: Peptide Vault publishes all of its pricing openly, offers tiered pack discounts of 5% on five vials and 10% on ten, advertises “Same-Day Fulfillment”, and carries four blends to Blank Peptides’ three. For a buyer ordering in multi-packs, that pricing structure is a real advantage.
Side by side: manufacturing, named labs and the test panel
| Attribute | Blank Peptides | Peptide Vault |
|---|---|---|
| Synthesizes in-house | Yes, own cGMP laboratory | States “Produced in a controlled U.S. facility”; whether the company owns it or synthesizes there not listed — verify |
| Third-party lab named | Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical | States “Third-party batch tested”; no lab named on pages reviewed 2026-09-08 — verify |
| HPLC purity | Yes, >99% per lot | States HPLC purity under a “≥99% Purity Standard” |
| MS identity | Yes, per lot | States identity “by HPLC and mass spectrometry” |
| Endotoxin and sterility | Both, per lot | States endotoxin in COA table; sterility not listed — verify |
| Batch COA before purchase | Yes, per lot at blankpeptides.com/coas/ | States a public COA library; no downloadable certificate found, entries marked “illustrative placeholders” — verify |
| Blend mg split disclosed | Yes, per component | States component names only; mg per component not listed — verify |
| Catalog size | 34 compounds | States 24 listings, including a reconstitution solution |
| Research-use labelling | Yes | States “not intended for human or veterinary use” |
Read the table by column rather than by row. What stands out is the pattern across a whole column: one is made of declaratives that can be checked against a named lab and a live certificate, and the other is made of stated claims that, on the pages reviewed, don’t yet have a public document behind them. That could change tomorrow if Peptide Vault uploads its PDFs, and if it does, several of those “verify” cells collapse into plain yeses.
How to verify either supplier yourself
- Open a real batch certificate before ordering from either site. From Blank Peptides, pick any lot at the COA page and confirm the lab name, lot number and all four results are present. From Peptide Vault, ask support for a lot-specific PDF and check whether it names the lab and includes sterility.
- Look up the named laboratory independently and confirm it runs HPLC and mass spectrometry on peptides. If a vendor won’t name one, treat every “third-party tested” claim on the site as unverified.
- For GLOW or KLOW from either vendor, ask for the mg of each component and check that the figures add up to the labelled total. Blank Peptides publishes this; Peptide Vault did not on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
- When the first order lands, match the vial’s lot number to the certificate you saved before buying. If they don’t match, or the vial has no lot number, that’s your answer about the COA library.
- Keep the supplier verification checklist open while you do all of this; it turns the five questions into a scoresheet you can reuse on the next vendor.
Further reading
- Which Peptide Vendors Name Their Testing Lab?
- Who Actually Manufactures Research Peptides in the USA?
- Peptide Vendors With Public Per-Batch COA Libraries
- Which Peptide Vendors Disclose Blend Composition?
Frequently asked questions
How do Blank Peptides and Peptide Vault compare on documentation?
Blank Peptides names its two testing labs, publishes a per-lot certificate covering identity, purity, endotoxin and sterility, and discloses blend composition per component. Peptide Vault states third-party HPLC and MS testing and a public COA library, but on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08 no lab was named, no downloadable certificates were found, and sterility and blend splits weren’t listed.
Does Peptide Vault manufacture its own peptides?
The site states products are “Made in the USA” and “Produced in a controlled U.S. facility”, and its about page says the company “supplies” research-grade peptides. Whether the company owns that facility or synthesizes the peptides itself was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, so the fair answer is that the site describes a US facility without saying whose it is.
Which vendor tests for sterility?
Blank Peptides lists sterility, alongside bacterial endotoxin, identity and purity, on every lot certificate. Peptide Vault’s COA library showed purity and endotoxin columns on 2026-09-08 but no sterility parameter, and the quality page didn’t mention it. If sterility matters to your work, ask Peptide Vault support directly whether it’s run and on which lots.
Are the GLOW and KLOW blends the same from both vendors?
They share ingredient names but that’s as far as the comparison can go from public pages. Blank Peptides publishes the mg of each component in its 70 mg GLOW and 80 mg KLOW. Peptide Vault lists the same component names for its versions but no per-component mg on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, so the ratios can’t be compared without asking.
Are these products for human use?
They are not, and neither vendor claims otherwise. Every compound discussed here, whether from Blank Peptides or Peptide Vault, is sold strictly for in-vitro laboratory research by qualified professionals. Both sites label their products as not intended for human or veterinary use, and the comparison above concerns analytical documentation 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.
