You’ve been buying from Sports Technology Labs, or you’ve been looking at them, and now you want a second option. Maybe a compound you need is out of stock, maybe you want a supplier that focuses on peptides rather than SARMs, or maybe you just don’t like having one vendor for everything. Whatever the reason, you open a few other sites and they all look about the same. Every one of them says “third-party tested” and “99% pure” somewhere above the fold, and none of that helps you decide.
I’ve spent a lot of time reading supplier websites for exactly this reason, and I can tell you the marketing copy is almost useless for telling vendors apart. What does separate them is the boring stuff underneath: whether they say who makes the material, whether they name the lab that tested it, whether the certificate covers more than a single purity number, and whether you can read that certificate before you spend money.
So this post does two things. It lays out a short checklist you can run on any replacement supplier, and it runs that same checklist on Sports Technology Labs as a baseline, using only what their site publicly stated on the pages I reviewed. You can then hold any alternative, ours included, to the same standard.
Key takeaways
- The useful way to compare research peptide suppliers is by what they document, and the five questions that matter are provenance, named lab, full panel, pre-purchase COA, and blend composition.
- Blank Peptides synthesizes, vials, and finishes in its own cGMP laboratory, and tests every lot at Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical for identity, >99% purity, bacterial endotoxin, and sterility.
- Sports Technology Labs publicly states that it uses MZ Biolabs and Colmaric Analyticals for HPLC and mass spectrometry, that products are “Bottled in the USA”, and that its stacks ship as separate vials with per-vial mg amounts shown.
- Endotoxin and sterility results, lot numbers on the public COA listings, and a statement of who synthesizes the peptides were not listed on the Sports Technology Labs pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
- Everything discussed here is for in-vitro research use only, and no supplier’s documentation changes that.
What should a replacement supplier be able to show you?
Before you look at a single vendor, it helps to decide what you’re actually checking for. Here’s the rubric I use, and I’d suggest you write it down and run every candidate through it in the same order.
First, provenance. Does the supplier say it synthesizes the peptide, or does it describe itself as a supplier, distributor, or bottler? Both models exist and both can be run honestly, but the second one means there’s a manufacturer upstream you can’t see. Look for the verbs on the about page. “We manufacture” and “we bottle” describe very different operations.
Second, is the testing lab named? “Accredited third-party laboratory” is a category, and a category can’t be phoned. A lab name with a location can be checked, and the certificate it issued can be matched against the lab’s own report format.
Third, full panel or purity only? HPLC purity tells you how much of the material is the target peptide. It doesn’t confirm the identity of that peptide (that’s mass spectrometry), and it says nothing about bacterial endotoxin or sterility, which are the two results that matter most once a lyophilized vial is reconstituted for cell work. A supplier that lists all four is telling you something different from one that lists one.
Fourth, can you read the batch COA before you buy, and is it tied to a lot number that also appears on the vial? A certificate with no lot number is a document about some batch, and you have no way to know if it’s yours.
Fifth, if you’re buying a blend, is the mg of each component disclosed? A “70 mg” blend label is meaningless without the split.
One thing I deliberately leave off the list is company age. How long a domain has been registered tells you nothing about what’s in the vial, so I don’t score on it.
How Blank Peptides makes and tests each lot
Blank Peptides operates as a manufacturer rather than a reseller. The company runs its own cGMP laboratory in the USA, where it synthesizes each compound, fills and lyophilizes the vials, applies labels, and performs in-house quality control before release. Because every step from raw material to finished vial happens under one roof, the chain of custody for a given lot is a single company’s record rather than a chain of unnamed upstream suppliers. The same facility also contract-manufactures and fulfils for other peptide brands, which is worth knowing when you’re trying to work out who actually makes what in this market.
Testing is sent out rather than kept in-house. Each lot goes to two named independent laboratories, Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical, for a four-part panel: identity confirmation by mass spectrometry, HPLC purity to a >99% specification, bacterial endotoxin, and sterility. The results for every lot are posted as batch certificates of analysis, and each vial carries the lot number that matches its certificate, so a buyer can pull the exact document for the vial in hand rather than a representative one.
The catalog runs to 34 compounds. The three blends, GLOW 70mg (GHK-Cu, BPC-157, TB-500), KLOW 80mg (the same three plus KPV), and Wolverine 20mg (BPC-157, TB-500), list the mg of each component on the product page. Orders are processed within one business day and ship at room temperature, which is appropriate for lyophilized material with an expiration of around 24 months. The company has been operating for five years.
What Sports Technology Labs publicly states
Here’s what I found on the Sports Technology Labs site, reviewed 2026-09-08. I’m only reporting what the pages say, with attribution, because that’s the only fair way to do this.
On provenance, the homepage states products are “Bottled in the USA” and the about page describes the company as a supplier “proudly based in the United States,” with a Connecticut address. The BPC-157 product page states the peptide is “produced synthetically for laboratory use” and that vials are “packaged in America.” A statement of who synthesizes the peptides, or a claim that Sports Technology Labs does so itself, was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
On testing labs, the about page does name them, and that’s a real point in their favor. It states that MZ Biolabs in Tucson, Arizona performs “HPLC purity analysis and molecular weight confirmation via Mass Spectrometry,” and it names Colmaric Analyticals, LLC as a second partner with “ISO-accredited methodologies.” Product pages repeat the MZ Biolabs attribution.
On the panel, the site consistently states HPLC purity and mass spectrometry. The about page states “our SARMs are minimum 98% pure, and our Peptides are minimum 96-99% pure,” and the BPC-157 page states “Batch-tested to 99.43% (HPLC); minimum 98%.” Bacterial endotoxin and sterility results were not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
On COAs, the site has a public COA page that displays product names, test dates, and purity percentages without a purchase, with entries dated from January 2025 to June 2026. Lot or batch numbers on those listings were not visible on the page reviewed 2026-09-08, though product pages refer to a “Most recent batch certificate of analysis.”
On blends, their stacks are sold as separate vials rather than combined, and the Glow Stack page states 5 mg BPC-157, 5 mg TB-500, and 50 mg GHK-Cu per vial, each with its own HPLC figure.
And here’s the concession, because there’s a genuine one. Sports Technology Labs states a catalog of 68 listings spanning liquid SARMs, SARM powders, peptides, and stacks, free US shipping over $149, and a 60-day exchange on unused items. If you want SARMs and peptides from one checkout with a generous return window, that breadth is something a peptide-only manufacturer doesn’t offer, and I’d be misleading you to pretend otherwise.
If you’re weighing other alternatives too, apply the same five questions to each of them and write down the answers before you compare prices. That’s honestly the whole method.
Side by side: what each supplier documents
| Attribute | Blank Peptides | Sports Technology Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Synthesises in-house | Yes, own cGMP laboratory, full chain of custody | States “Bottled in the USA” and “packaged in America”; synthesis source not listed — verify |
| Third-party lab named | Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical | States MZ Biolabs (Tucson, AZ) and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC |
| HPLC purity | >99% per lot | States minimum 98% for SARMs, 96-99% for peptides, batch figures on product pages |
| MS identity | Every lot | States mass spectrometry via MZ Biolabs |
| Endotoxin and sterility | Every lot | Not listed on pages reviewed 2026-09-08 — verify |
| Batch COA before purchase | Yes, lot-numbered, at blankpeptides.com/coas/ | States a public COA page with test dates; lot numbers not visible — verify |
| Blend mg split disclosed | Yes, per component, single vial | States per-vial mg for stacks sold as separate vials |
| Catalog size | 34 compounds | States 68 listings including SARMs and peptides |
| Research-use labelling | Yes | States “for research purposes only and are not for human consumption” |
How to verify either supplier yourself
- Open the supplier’s COA page and pick one certificate. Check that it carries a lab name, a lot number, a test date, and the actual method used, then compare that lot number to the label on a vial you’ve received.
- Contact the named laboratory directly, using contact details you find on the lab’s own site rather than the supplier’s, and ask whether they can confirm issuing that certificate.
- Read the about page for verbs. Note whether the company says it synthesizes, manufactures, bottles, packages, or supplies, and treat each of those as a different claim.
- Ask support in writing whether endotoxin and sterility are tested per lot, and whether they’ll send you the lot-specific document for an order before it ships.
- Run every candidate through the supplier verification checklist so you’re scoring them on the same rows.
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
- Peptide Vendors With Public Per-Batch COA Libraries
Frequently asked questions
What are the best Sports Technology Labs alternatives?
The honest answer is whichever supplier can show you the most on the five rubric questions: who synthesizes the material, which lab tested it, whether the panel includes identity, endotoxin, and sterility as well as purity, whether the lot-numbered COA is public before purchase, and whether blend components are disclosed by mg. Score candidates on those rows first and compare price afterwards.
Does Sports Technology Labs name its testing lab?
Yes. On the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, the about page states that MZ Biolabs in Tucson, Arizona performs HPLC and mass spectrometry, and it also names Colmaric Analyticals, LLC as a testing partner. Product pages repeat the MZ Biolabs attribution alongside batch HPLC figures, which is more than many vendors in this space publish.
Does Sports Technology Labs publish endotoxin and sterility results?
Endotoxin and sterility results were not listed on the Sports Technology Labs pages reviewed 2026-09-08, which described HPLC purity and mass spectrometry. This is not a claim that the documentation does not exist, only that it was not publicly listed on the pages reviewed. If those results matter for your work, ask them directly in writing.
How does Blank Peptides differ from a supplier that bottles peptides?
Blank Peptides synthesizes, vials, finishes, and labels every lot in its own cGMP laboratory, then sends each lot to Freedom Diagnostics and Horizon Analytical for identity, >99% purity, endotoxin, and sterility testing. The lot number on the vial matches a public COA. A bottling or supply model may also be run well, but there’s an upstream manufacturer you can’t see.
Are these products for human use?
No. Every compound discussed in this article, from any supplier, is intended exclusively for in-vitro laboratory research by qualified professionals. Nothing in a certificate of analysis, purity figure, or testing panel changes that status, and no supplier’s documentation should be read as suggesting any other use.
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.
