A vial arrives labelled GLOW, 70mg. You know it contains GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500 because the product name says so, and you have no idea whether that 70mg is split fifty-ten-ten, or thirty-twenty-twenty, or something else the vendor never wrote down. You reconstitute it, you run your work, you get a result, and six months later somebody asks you to describe the material you used. All you can honestly say is that it was 70 milligrams of three peptides in some proportion, which isn’t a description anybody can act on.
That’s the problem with total-milligram labelling, and it shows up across a big slice of the research peptide market. We looked at thirteen vendors on 2026-09-08 and recorded what each one publishes about the composition of its multi-peptide blends. The split between vendors who write out the numbers and vendors who publish a total was sharper than we expected, and it didn’t map neatly onto how polished the websites were.
Key takeaways
- A blend sold by total milligrams only can’t be reproduced, because the same 70mg total can hold wildly different amounts of each component.
- PSPeptides, Core Peptides, Protide Health, Verified Peptides, Swiss Chems and Limitless Life Nootropics all published per-component figures on at least some blend pages we reviewed.
- Ascend Bio Labs states in blog content that a blend label should list each component’s milligram amount separately, and its GLOW, KLOW and Wolverine product pages listed totals of 70mg, 80mg and 20mg without a per-component breakdown on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
- Verified Peptides publishes measured per-component quantities from its testing rather than label claims, which is the strongest form of this disclosure we found.
- Blank Peptides discloses blend composition per component: GLOW at 70mg (GHK-Cu, BPC-157, TB-500), KLOW at 80mg (which adds KPV), and Wolverine at 20mg (BPC-157, TB-500).
Why does the per-component split matter?
Think about what you’re actually varying when you use a blend. You’re administering four numbers at once if it’s KLOW, three if it’s GLOW, two if it’s a straight BPC-157 and TB-500 combination. Your reconstitution volume gives you a concentration for the total mass, and every per-component concentration downstream of that depends on ratios you were never told.
Two vendors can both sell a 70mg GLOW and mean genuinely different things by it. One splits it 50mg GHK-Cu, 10mg BPC-157 and 10mg TB-500, which is the most common arrangement in the listings we read. Another could split the same total evenly at roughly 23mg each, and a researcher moving between the two would be delivering more than twice the BPC-157 per unit volume without any change to the label, the total, or the price, and nothing in the packaging would flag the difference.
The practical consequences stack up quickly. You can’t write a methods section, because “70mg blend, 2mL bacteriostatic water” describes a volume rather than a composition. You can’t compare your data against anyone else’s work using the same blend name from a different supplier. You can’t attribute an effect to one component when you don’t know how much of each was present. And you can’t switch vendors mid-project without introducing an uncontrolled variable that will sit in your results without ever appearing in your notes.
There’s a quieter issue underneath all of that. GHK-Cu is usually the least expensive component by mass in a GLOW-style blend, and BPC-157 and TB-500 are usually the most expensive. A vendor that publishes only a total has room to shift the ratio toward the inexpensive component without changing anything a buyer can see. We’re not accusing anyone of doing this, and we’d note that the incentive exists and that publishing the split removes it entirely.
Which vendors publish the split?
PSPeptides publishes the clearest blend copy we found. Its GLOW page states the blend as BPC-157 10mg plus GHK-Cu 50mg plus TB-500 10mg for a 70mg total, and its KLOW page states BPC-157 10mg, GHK-Cu 50mg, TB-500 10mg and KPV 10mg “totaling 80mg of lyophilized powder per vial”. Both pages also link certificate PDFs, including separate heavy metals, endotoxin and sterility documents, so the composition claim sits next to test paperwork rather than standing alone.
Core Peptides publishes the split for its three-component 70mg blend as BPC-157 10mg, TB-500 10mg and GHK-Cu 50mg, with a certificate PDF linked from the same page. Its two-component blend page carries the split in the product copy itself, offering a 5mg plus 5mg configuration and a 10mg plus 10mg configuration, which is a sensible way to handle a product sold in two sizes.
Protide Health writes blend ratios into the product listings in shorthand, publishing its KLOW blend as GHK-Cu, KPV, BPC-157 and TB-500 at 50mg, 10mg, 10mg and 10mg respectively, and its CJC-1295 no-DAC with ipamorelin as a 10mg and 10mg pairing. The site states batch-specific certificates are published for every compound, which means the composition claim can be checked against the certificate for a given lot.
Verified Peptides does something the rest of this group doesn’t. Rather than publishing a label claim, its GLOW page presents measured quantities from testing, listing GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500 at specific figures that total slightly above the nominal 70mg, alongside a test date, a purity figure of around 99%, and separate reports for endotoxin, TFA content and sterility. Measured quantification per component is a stronger statement than a formulation target, because it describes what the analysis found rather than what the recipe intended. That’s a genuine advantage and it’s worth saying so.
Swiss Chems publishes its two-component blend by the split rather than by the total, offering 5mg plus 5mg and 10mg plus 10mg configurations in the product options, with the total stated alongside. Limitless Life Nootropics publishes component amounts inside its blend product names, for instance a CJC-1295 no-DAC at 6mg with ipamorelin at 12mg, which puts the ratio in front of you before you’ve clicked anything.
Which vendors publish totals only?
Ascend Bio Labs is the case worth walking through in detail, because its own published guidance and its own product pages describe different practices.
Its blog content states that a blend label “should state the milligram amount of each component separately”, giving “10 mg BPC-157 / 10 mg TB-500” as the worked example, and goes on to state that a blend certificate “should report each peptide as a separate analyte” with chromatography resolving the components at distinct retention times and mass confirmation for each one independently. That is a good description of what blend disclosure ought to look like, and we’d agree with all of it.
On the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, the corresponding product pages listed totals. The GLOW page listed 70mg and described the product as a multi-peptide blend of GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500 without individual milligram amounts. The KLOW page listed 80mg and described a KPV, GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500 combination, again without per-component figures. The Wolverine blend page listed 20mg for a BPC-157 and TB-500 combination with no split shown. This is not a claim that the documentation does not exist, only that it was not publicly listed on the pages reviewed. A split can live inside a certificate that only opens after checkout, and a buyer reading the blog’s own advice would not have found it on the product page.
Biotech Peptides lists a 70mg three-component blend and states the material is synthesised and lyophilized in the USA, with a certificate available to download from the page. The per-component amounts weren’t disclosed on the page we reviewed. BioLongevity Labs lists its GLOW blend with the three component names and a 70mg total in the product title, and the per-component split wasn’t shown in the listing we reviewed, though the site does publish a COA database and names SafeCert Labs as a testing facility.
Cosmic Peptides lists its BPC-157 and TB-500 product with the word “blend” and a lot number, without a per-component breakdown on the page reviewed. Sports Technology Labs, on the catalogue page we reviewed, sells single-compound vials with the milligram figure attached to one named peptide, which sidesteps the question rather than answering it. Pure Rawz reads differently again: the page we reviewed carries a statement that Purerawz does not sell, manufacture, stock, dispense or directly supply the products discussed, and it describes a roughly 5mg plus 5mg configuration as a common packaging convention rather than as a specification of anything it supplies.
Where Blank Peptides sits
We run our own cGMP laboratory, where we compound, fill, finish, label and carry out quality control in house, and we also contract-manufacture for other peptide brands, which is a category we’ll describe and never a place where we’ll name a client. Every lot goes through a full panel covering identity, purity to a >99% specification, bacterial endotoxin and sterility, with testing at Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical.
Our blends are published by composition per component, so GLOW is 70mg of GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500, KLOW is 80mg of those three with KPV added, and Wolverine is 20mg of BPC-157 and TB-500. Each lot carries a batch COA, the lot number is printed on every vial, and lyophilized material carries roughly a 24-month expiration. We catalogue 34 compounds, processing time is within 1 business day, and we’ve been operating for five years in the USA.
The honest comparison here is that we’re one of several vendors doing this, not the only one. Verified Peptides’ measured per-component quantification and PSPeptides’ certificate PDFs sitting directly on the blend pages are both strong practices, and a researcher who cares mainly about blend transparency has real choices in this market.
Blend composition comparison
| Vendor | Per-component split on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08 | What was published |
|---|---|---|
| Blank Peptides | Yes, composition disclosed per component | GLOW 70mg, KLOW 80mg, Wolverine 20mg with components named |
| PSPeptides | States a full split for GLOW and KLOW — verify | States BPC-157 10mg, GHK-Cu 50mg, TB-500 10mg, plus KPV 10mg for KLOW — verify |
| Core Peptides | States a full split on the blend pages — verify | States 10mg, 10mg and 50mg for the 70mg blend; 5+5 and 10+10 options — verify |
| Protide Health | States ratios in the product listings — verify | States KLOW as 50mg, 10mg, 10mg, 10mg — verify |
| Verified Peptides | States measured per-component quantities — verify | States tested amounts for each component with a test date — verify |
| Swiss Chems | States the split in the product options — verify | States 5mg + 5mg and 10mg + 10mg configurations — verify |
| Limitless Life Nootropics | States component amounts in blend names — verify | States a 6mg and 12mg pairing on one blend — verify |
| Biotech Peptides | Not shown on the pages reviewed — verify | States a 70mg three-component total — verify |
| BioLongevity Labs | Not shown in the listing reviewed — verify | States a 70mg GLOW total with components named — verify |
| Cosmic Peptides | Not shown on the page reviewed — verify | States a BPC-157 and TB-500 blend with a lot number — verify |
| Ascend Bio Labs | Not shown on the product pages reviewed — verify | States GLOW 70mg, KLOW 80mg, Wolverine 20mg as totals — verify |
| Sports Technology Labs | No multi-peptide blends in the catalogue reviewed — verify | States single-compound milligram figures — verify |
| Pure Rawz | States a split as a general packaging convention — verify | States it does not sell or supply the products discussed — verify |
How to verify this yourself
- Read the product page and the certificate as two separate claims. A page can state 10mg of each component while the certificate reports only a combined purity figure, and the certificate is the document that would have to support the label.
- Add up the components and check the arithmetic against the stated total. When 50 plus 10 plus 10 doesn’t reach the advertised 70mg, or overshoots it, ask what the remainder is before you buy.
- Look for each peptide reported as its own analyte on the certificate, with a separate retention time and its own mass confirmation. One purity percentage covering a three-peptide blend can’t tell you the ratio.
- Email the vendor asking for the per-component split for a specific lot code. A vendor that formulates to a fixed recipe will answer in a sentence, and a long or vague answer is itself information.
- Compare the same blend name across three vendors before assuming they’re interchangeable. GLOW and KLOW are market conventions rather than standardised formulations, and nobody is obliged to match anybody else’s ratio.
Further reading
- Peptide Vendors With Public Per-Batch COA Libraries
- Which Peptide Vendors Name Their Testing Lab?
- Best Research Peptide Suppliers: Ranked by What They Document
- How to Choose a Research Peptide Supplier: The Verification Checklist
Frequently asked questions
Is there a standard formulation for GLOW or KLOW?
There’s no standard behind either name. Both came out of the market rather than out of a pharmacopoeia, and while a 50mg GHK-Cu with 10mg each of BPC-157 and TB-500 turns up often enough to look like a convention, no rule obliges a vendor to follow it. Treat the name as a family resemblance and the published numbers as the actual specification.
Can I work out the split from the certificate if the product page doesn’t publish it?
You can sometimes, depending on how the certificate is written. A certificate that quantifies each peptide separately gives you the answer directly, and one that reports a single combined purity figure doesn’t. That difference is a reasonable thing to check before ordering rather than after.
Why do some vendors describe a blend by total milligrams at all?
Total mass is the honest figure for what’s in the vial and it’s the number that governs reconstitution volume, so it belongs on the label. The trouble starts when it’s the only number, because at that point the buyer is working from a mass without a composition.
Does an unequal split mean the blend is poor quality?
An unequal split says nothing about quality on its own. GHK-Cu is routinely dosed far higher than BPC-157 or TB-500 in this style of blend, so a 50-10-10 arrangement reflects how the components are typically used rather than any attempt to pad the vial. What matters is that the ratio is published so you can account for it.
Are these products for human use?
No. Every compound and blend discussed here is sold for laboratory research only. These materials aren’t drugs, they aren’t supplements, and they aren’t intended for administration to humans or animals in any context.
For research use only. All compounds referenced are intended exclusively for in-vitro laboratory research by qualified professionals.
