You’ve got two tabs open, one for each supplier, and you’re trying to work out which one deserves the order. Both say their peptides are over 99% pure, both mention third-party testing, both ship inside the USA, and both have a page full of PDF certificates. From the outside they look like the same offer at different prices, and if you buy on that impression you’re really buying on price and on which site loaded faster.
I work with Blank Peptides, so I’m obviously not neutral, and I’d rather say that up front than pretend otherwise. What I can do is hold both companies to the same five questions and quote each site rather than characterize it. For Umbrella Labs, every statement below comes from pages I read on 2026-09-08, and where a page didn’t say something I’ll tell you that it didn’t rather than guess at what’s behind it.
The comparison that matters is the table in the middle of this article. Everything before it explains what the rows mean, and everything after it tells you how to check the cells yourself, because a comparison you can’t audit is just another opinion.
Key takeaways
- The useful way to compare two research peptide suppliers is a fixed rubric about published documentation: who makes the product, who tests it, what the panel covers, whether the lot certificate is public before purchase, and whether blends are broken out by component.
- Blank Peptides synthesizes, vials, and labels 34 compounds in its own cGMP laboratory, and Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical test every lot for identity, >99% purity, bacterial endotoxin, and sterility, with certificates posted at blankpeptides.com/coas/.
- Umbrella Labs publicly states “USA MADE” and “≥99% PURITY”, describes HPLC and LC/GC-MS analysis “in a CLIA environment”, and links dated, lot-numbered certificate PDFs on product pages, with “Vanguard Laboratory” appearing on the BPC-157 documents.
- A manufacturing facility, a lab name on the quality-assurance page, an MS identity result, and a sterility result were not listed on the Umbrella Labs pages and documents reviewed 2026-09-08.
- Every compound in this comparison is a research-use-only reagent intended for in-vitro laboratory work, and nothing here is guidance for any other use.
What separates a documented supplier from an undocumented one?
Before either company gets named in this section, I want to fix the rubric, because comparing on whatever happens to be visible is how you end up rating vendors on their web design. There are five questions, and each one has to be answerable from something the supplier published.
The first is provenance. Does the company synthesize the peptide itself, in a facility it operates, or does it stock material produced somewhere else and finish or relabel it? A site that makes its own product can describe the process, and a site that doesn’t will usually describe testing instead, which is a useful tell for where the supply chain actually starts.
The second is whether the testing lab is named. “Third-party tested” is a claim that costs nothing to make. A named laboratory is a claim you can take to that laboratory and ask them to confirm, and a lab that appears on the letterhead of the certificate is even better than one that appears only in marketing copy.
The third is panel depth. Purity by HPLC tells you what fraction of the material is a single compound. Identity by mass spectrometry tells you that the compound is the one on the label. Bacterial endotoxin and sterility tell you whether the vial is fit for injectable-format work in cell culture. A certificate that reports purity alone has answered one of four questions, and the other three are the ones that go wrong quietly.
The fourth is whether you can read a batch certificate before purchase, tied to a lot number that appears on the vial. A generic certificate that covers “BPC-157” as a product rather than “lot X” as a batch can’t tell you about the vial you’ll receive.
The fifth applies to blends. If a vial contains three peptides, the milligrams of each one need to be on the label and on the product page, or you can’t dose it and you can’t check the certificate against anything.
I’m deliberately leaving out company age and domain age, because neither one changes what’s in the vial.
How Blank Peptides makes and tests each lot
Read as an outside reviewer would read it, Blank Peptides’ public material answers the provenance question in plain language: the company runs its own cGMP laboratory in the USA and handles synthesis, vialing, finishing, labeling, and quality control inside that facility. The chain of custody for any given lot therefore stays with one operator from raw material to sealed, labeled vial. The same facility contract-manufactures and fulfils for other research peptide brands, which the company describes as a category of work without naming clients.
For testing, the company names two independent laboratories, Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical, and states that every production lot receives a full panel: mass spectrometry identity, HPLC purity at >99%, bacterial endotoxin, and sterility. Results for each lot are published as batch certificates of analysis before the product goes on sale, and the lot number on each certificate corresponds to the lot number printed on every vial, so a buyer can match paperwork to product on arrival.
The catalog is 34 compounds, and the three blends disclose their composition per component: GLOW is a 70mg vial of GHK-Cu, BPC-157, and TB-500; KLOW is an 80mg vial that adds KPV to the same three; Wolverine is a 20mg vial of BPC-157 and TB-500. Lyophilized product carries an expiration of about 24 months. The stated processing time is within 1 business day, orders ship at room temperature, and all product is labeled for research use only. The company has been in business for five years.
What Umbrella Labs publicly states
Umbrella Labs operates at umbrellalabs.is, which resolved normally on 2026-09-08. The homepage states “USA MADE” and “≥99% PURITY”, advertises “FREE SHIPPING”, and lists SARMs, peptides, nootropics, research chemicals, lab supplies, amino acids, and probiotic strains as categories, with “50+ Sarms for Sale” as a headline figure. That “USA MADE” phrase is the extent of what the site states about manufacturing; a facility, an in-house synthesis process, or a location was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, and the FAQ doesn’t address who makes the product.
The quality-assurance page states that the company employs “High Performance Liquid Chromatography and Liquid/Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry” and that “routine analyses are conducted in a CLIA environment using a flexible range of Thermo Scientific and Agilent modalities”, listing instruments such as a triple quadrupole GC-MS and a linear ion trap LC-MS. The page states that Umbrella Labs is “the only supplier of SARMs with third-party purity validation from analytical chemists credentialed by the National Certification Commission in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering (NCCCCE)”, and the FAQ states products “are tested in house and by 3rd parties for purity and generally average over 99% pure”. A laboratory name was not listed on the quality-assurance or FAQ pages reviewed 2026-09-08. The certificate PDFs linked from the BPC-157 product page do carry the name “Vanguard Laboratory” and a laboratory director’s name, so the lab is identifiable from the documents themselves.
Those documents are worth describing precisely. The BPC-157 page states “≥99% Pure (LC-MS)” and links a 5mg certificate dated 2026-06-15, a 10mg certificate dated 2025-12-22, and an endotoxin report dated 2026-02-04. The 5mg certificate reports chromatographic purity by HPLC-UV/VIS of 98.22% for lot ULP-20409A. The endotoxin report states “Pass – <5.00 EU/mg” by LAL for lot ULP-20409. An MS identity result and a sterility result were not listed on the documents reviewed. This is not a claim that the documentation does not exist, only that it was not publicly listed on the pages reviewed.
And here’s the advantage I’d concede without hesitation: catalog and disclosure. The peptides section lists 108 peptide vials, 20 vial blends, 23 liquid sprays, and further capsule, tablet, and GLP subcategories, several times the breadth of a 34-compound range. Blend titles carry the split in the name, for example “GLOW GHK-CU/TB-500/BPC-157 BLEND PEPTIDE (70MG/10MG/10MG) 90MG VIAL”, and that blend page links its own certificate dated 2026-07-09. The site also states “free expedited shipping within the United States of America (USA) only” with a one-time replacement guarantee for lost or damaged shipments, and the FAQ states orders “generally are sent out within 24-48 hours of order receipt”.
Side by side: manufacturing, named labs, and panel depth
| Attribute | Blank Peptides | Umbrella Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Synthesises in-house | Yes, own cGMP laboratory | States “USA MADE”; facility or synthesis not described — verify |
| Third-party lab named | Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical | Not on quality pages; “Vanguard Laboratory” on linked BPC-157 COAs — verify |
| HPLC purity | >99% per lot | States “≥99% Pure (LC-MS)”; linked 5mg BPC-157 COA reports 98.22% — verify |
| MS identity | Confirmed per lot | States LC/GC-MS methods; identity result not on the COAs reviewed — verify |
| Endotoxin and sterility | Both tested per lot | States endotoxin “Pass – <5.00 EU/mg” for BPC-157; sterility not listed — verify |
| Batch COA before purchase | Yes, lot-numbered at blankpeptides.com/coas/ | States dated, lot-numbered COA PDFs on product pages — verify |
| Blend mg split disclosed | Yes, per component | States mg per component in blend titles |
| Catalog size | 34 compounds | States 108 peptide vials plus 20 blends and other formats |
| Research-use labelling | Yes, on every vial | States “sold for laboratory research use only” |
How to verify either supplier yourself
- Download a certificate from each site and read the letterhead first, then the lot number, then the results table. A certificate that lists a lab, a lot, and four separate results has answered the rubric; one that lists a lab, a lot, and a single purity line has answered a quarter of it.
- Compare the purity figure on the certificate with the purity figure on the product page. When they differ, that’s a question to send to the vendor, and the quality of the answer tells you a lot about how the paperwork is managed.
- Look on each quality page for a sentence describing where synthesis happens. Absence of that sentence is a gap to ask about directly, and a supplier that manufactures in-house will usually answer in one line.
- Email the laboratory whose name is on the certificate and ask them to confirm the report by number. Both Blank Peptides’ labs and the lab named on Umbrella Labs’ documents are contactable.
- Score both suppliers against the supplier verification checklist and keep the sheet, so the next comparison starts from evidence instead of memory.
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
- Best Research Peptide Suppliers: Ranked by What They Document
Frequently asked questions
How do Blank Peptides vs Umbrella Labs compare on testing?
Blank Peptides names Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical and publishes a four-test panel per lot: identity, >99% purity, endotoxin, and sterility. Umbrella Labs states HPLC and LC/GC-MS methods and links certificates carrying the name “Vanguard Laboratory”; the BPC-157 documents reviewed 2026-09-08 showed HPLC purity and an endotoxin result, with MS identity and sterility not listed.
Which supplier manufactures its own peptides?
Blank Peptides states that it synthesizes, vials, and labels product in its own cGMP laboratory and also contract-manufactures for other brands. Umbrella Labs states “USA MADE” on its homepage; a facility description, synthesis process, or manufacturing location was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, so that’s a question worth putting to them directly.
Does Umbrella Labs publish COAs before purchase?
Yes, in the sense that the BPC-157 and GLOW blend product pages link dated PDF certificates with lot numbers, and a hub page organizes certificates by product category, all viewable without an account on 2026-09-08. Whether the posted lot matches the lot you receive is something to confirm by comparing the vial label against the PDF on arrival.
Which supplier has the larger catalog?
Umbrella Labs, comfortably. Its peptides section states 108 peptide vials, 20 vial blends, 23 liquid sprays, and several smaller subcategories, against 34 compounds at Blank Peptides. If your protocol needs a compound the smaller catalog doesn’t carry, that settles the question on its own; if it needs a fully documented lot of a common compound, breadth matters less.
Are these products for human use?
No. Every compound mentioned here is a research-use-only reagent intended for in-vitro laboratory work by qualified professionals. Umbrella Labs states its products are “not for human consumption”, Blank Peptides labels every vial for research use only, and this comparison is about documentation, never about any other application.
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.
