These two sites make a reader work in opposite directions. One opens straight into a shop with prices, a public list of test dates and two laboratories named on the about page. The other stops you at a researcher confirmation before you see much of anything, then rewards you with a certificate page that lists eight assays and puts a QR code on the vial label. Comparing them fairly means resisting the urge to reward whichever one let you in faster.
I write for a peptide manufacturer, and neither company below is that manufacturer, so the scoring here does not change based on which one you end up ordering from. Five questions, asked in the same words of both sites, with answers quoted from their own pages and every unanswered row logged as a gap in what has been published rather than as an accusation about what happens off-page.
The observations come from sportstechnologylabs.com and aminoclub.com as they stood on 2026-09-08. Gated sections stayed gated, and I have said so where that limited what I could read. Sites change, so treat the date as part of every finding.
Key takeaways
- The comparison worth making covers who synthesized the lot, which laboratory tested it, how many assays ran, whether a certificate opens before payment and carries a lot number, and whether blends print per-component milligrams.
- Sports Technology Labs publicly names MZ Biolabs in Tucson, Arizona and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC, and states “HPLC purity analysis and molecular weight confirmation via Mass Spectrometry.”
- Amino Club publicly states an eight-assay panel with a method against each entry, including endotoxin “quantified in EU/mL by the kinetic method” and sterility by “PCR-based microbial detection.”
- Neither company stated who performs the synthesis on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, and Amino Club stated only that certificates come from “an independent ISO 17025 accredited lab” without naming it.
- Everything referenced here is research material for in-vitro laboratory work by qualified professionals, and none of it is guidance for use in people or animals.
What should decide between two vendors that both sound careful?
The rubric goes down before either name, because a standard written after reading two homepages is a standard bent by whichever one you enjoyed more.
Provenance leads. Does the company state that it makes the material, that it buys it finished and labels it, or neither? Verbs answer this where adjectives never will. “We synthesize” and “our release testing” point one way, “we supply” and “our partner facilities” point another, and both describe legitimate businesses. What differs is who can account for the lot when a number looks wrong six weeks later.
Second, is the laboratory named? Any site can print “third-party tested” and most do. A name with a city makes the claim checkable, because you can confirm the laboratory exists, read its accreditation scope, see whether peptide analysis sits inside that scope, and ask whether a report number belongs to it. An accreditation standard quoted without a name gets you partway and stops.
Third, how wide is the panel? HPLC purity reports what fraction of the material is a single species. Mass spectrometry confirms the species is the sequence on the label, and retention-time matching against a reference standard answers a slightly weaker version of that question. Bacterial endotoxin and sterility describe the finished vial rather than the powder. Identity, purity, endotoxin and sterility together make a complete panel, and purity by itself is a quarter of one.
Fourth, access and linkage. Can you open a batch certificate before paying, and does the lot number on it match the lot printed on the vial that arrives? A document that never meets the glass it describes is decoration. A lot number that appears in both places is evidence.
Fifth, blend disclosure. A blend sold by total milligrams with no per-component split cannot be written into a methods section, so the split separates a product a researcher can cite from one they cannot. Company age stays off this list, since it describes a business rather than a lot.
Where this standard comes from
These five checks are the ones Blank Peptides publishes its own lots against, as batch certificates of analysis posted per lot. Neither company here is that one. Saying where a yardstick came from before measuring two other businesses with it feels like the minimum, since a ruler is only worth using if the party holding it would accept being measured the same way.
What Sports Technology Labs and Amino Club publicly state
Sports Technology Labs sells at sportstechnologylabs.com and ships its own stock. On provenance, the homepage states products are “Bottled in the USA,” and the about page describes a supplier “proudly based in the United States” at a stated Shelton, Connecticut address, referring to “USP-Grade Solvents” and “Medical-Grade Glass.” The BPC-157 page states the peptide is “produced synthetically for laboratory use” and “packaged in America.” A statement that the company performs synthesis itself, or naming the party that does, was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
On testing, the about page states that MZ Biolabs in Tucson, Arizona, described as a DEA-licensed facility, performs “HPLC purity analysis and molecular weight confirmation via Mass Spectrometry,” and names Colmaric Analyticals, LLC for “ISO-accredited methodologies.” That is the credit this company earns outright, because two named laboratories tied to two named methods can be checked without asking the vendor for permission. Purity is stated as “our SARMs are minimum 98% pure, and our Peptides are minimum 96-99% pure,” with the BPC-157 page stating “Batch-tested to 99.43% (HPLC); minimum 98%.” The public certificate page lists product names, test dates and purity figures without an account, running January 2025 to June 2026 across roughly 18 peptide entries. Lot numbers were not visible on that index. Bacterial endotoxin and sterility results were not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08. Stacks ship as separate vials with stated amounts, the Glow Stack listing 5 mg BPC-157, 5 mg TB-500 and 50 mg GHK-Cu, and terms are stated as 68 listings, free US shipping over $149 and dispatch “within one business day.”
Amino Club trades at aminoclub.com behind a gate stating that the company “sells research peptides exclusively to qualified researchers and laboratories for in vitro and laboratory use.” On provenance, a statement about who synthesizes the peptides was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, and the about page sat behind that gate without publishing manufacturing or location information. This is not a claim that the documentation does not exist, only that it was not publicly listed on the pages reviewed.
On testing, its certificate page publishes an eight-assay panel with a stated method against each entry, and this is where the concession lands. HPLC purity is described as “Reverse-phase HPLC area normalization quantifies the target peptide,” net peptide content is quantified by HPLC, and identity is stated as a “Retention-time match against a certified reference standard.” Heavy metals are covered by ICP-MS, with “Arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and chromium quantified by mass spectrometry.” Sterility is described as “PCR-based microbial detection verifies no bacterial or fungal growth,” endotoxin as “Bacterial endotoxin quantified in EU/mL by the kinetic method,” and a fentanyl screen states that “Every batch is screened for fentanyl contamination,” alongside a visual inspection entry. That panel is wider than most of this market publishes and it covers the two assays vendors usually skip. The linkage is equally good: the page states certificates are lot-dated, showing entries such as “Lot SADL0001 · Aug 20, 2026,” that “Every product page carries its current and archived certificates,” that the library is searchable, and that a researcher “Holding a vial” can “Scan the QR code on its label to jump straight to that batch’s certificate.” The laboratory itself was not named, with the page stating only that “Every certificate above comes from an independent ISO 17025 accredited lab.” Because the storefront sits behind the researcher gate, a catalog count and blend composition per component were not observable on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08. The gate does carry clear research-use wording, stating products are “not for human or veterinary use” and “have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”
Side by side: named laboratories against panel width and lot linkage
| Attribute | Sports Technology Labs | Amino Club |
|---|---|---|
| Synthesises in-house | States products are “Bottled in the USA” and “packaged in America”; who synthesises not stated — verify | Not listed on pages reviewed 2026-09-08; about page behind a researcher gate — verify |
| Third-party lab named | States MZ Biolabs (Tucson, AZ) and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC, with batch results attributed to MZ Biolabs — verify | States certificates come from “an independent ISO 17025 accredited lab”; name not listed — verify |
| HPLC purity | States peptides are “minimum 96-99% pure” and a batch figure of “99.43% (HPLC)” — verify | States “Reverse-phase HPLC area normalization quantifies the target peptide”, plus net peptide content by HPLC — verify |
| MS identity | States “molecular weight confirmation via Mass Spectrometry” at MZ Biolabs — verify | States identity by “Retention-time match against a certified reference standard”; mass spectrometry stated for heavy metals — verify |
| Endotoxin and sterility | Not listed on pages reviewed 2026-09-08 — verify | States endotoxin “quantified in EU/mL by the kinetic method” and sterility by “PCR-based microbial detection” — verify |
| Batch COA before purchase | States a public COA page with test dates and purity figures; lot numbers not visible on the index — verify | States lot-dated certificates on every product page, a searchable library, and a QR code on the vial label — verify |
| Blend mg split disclosed | States per-vial amounts for separate-vial stacks, such as 5 mg, 5 mg and 50 mg for Glow — verify | Not observable on pages reviewed 2026-09-08; storefront behind a researcher gate — verify |
| Catalog size | States 68 listings across liquid SARMs, SARM powders, peptides and stacks — verify | Count not observable on pages reviewed 2026-09-08 — verify |
| Research-use labelling | States products are “for research purposes only and are not for human consumption” — verify | States products are “not for human or veterinary use” and have not been evaluated by the FDA — verify |
Each site answers the row the other leaves open. Sports Technology Labs will tell you which laboratory ran the test while showing you a summary table rather than the document. Amino Club will hand you a lot-dated document with eight assays on it while declining to say whose signature is at the bottom.
How to verify either supplier yourself
- Decide first whether a researcher gate is a barrier or a feature for your purposes, then work from the page for the exact compound and vial size rather than the homepage, noting any lot reference before you pay.
- Where a laboratory is named, contact it yourself and ask whether the report number belongs to it. Where only an accreditation standard appears, ask support for the laboratory’s name in writing before ordering.
- Read the method lines rather than the headline percentage. Identity by mass measurement and identity by retention-time match are different answers to the same question, and it is fair to ask which one your certificate carries.
- Ask Sports Technology Labs whether endotoxin and sterility ran on your lot, since those results were not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, and ask Amino Club for the blend split and catalog detail the gate kept out of view.
- Score both against the supplier verification checklist so the same rows get filled in for each.
Further reading
- Which Peptide Vendors Name Their Testing Lab?
- Peptide Vendors With Public Per-Batch COA Libraries
- Which Peptide Vendors Disclose Blend Composition?
- Best Research Peptide Suppliers: Ranked by What They Document
Frequently asked questions
Sports Technology Labs vs Amino Club: which publishes more?
They publish different things. Amino Club publishes a wider panel and a stronger link between vial and document, stating eight assays with methods, lot-dated certificates and a QR code on the label. Sports Technology Labs publishes the one thing Amino Club withholds, naming MZ Biolabs and Colmaric Analyticals as the laboratories behind its results.
Does either name its testing laboratory?
Sports Technology Labs does, stating MZ Biolabs in Tucson, Arizona and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC. Amino Club states only that “Every certificate above comes from an independent ISO 17025 accredited lab,” which tells you the accreditation standard without telling you whom to call. Requesting that name in writing before ordering is a reasonable ask.
Which one covers endotoxin and sterility?
Amino Club states both, describing endotoxin as “quantified in EU/mL by the kinetic method” and sterility by “PCR-based microbial detection verifies no bacterial or fungal growth.” Those results were not listed on the Sports Technology Labs pages reviewed 2026-09-08, which is a limit on what was readable rather than a statement about what testing was performed.
Why is Amino Club’s catalog harder to compare?
Because its storefront sits behind a researcher confirmation gate, which kept catalog counts and blend composition out of view on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08. Sports Technology Labs lists 68 items openly with stack amounts stated per vial, so the breadth and blend rows could be filled for one company and not the other.
Are these products for human use?
No. Everything referenced here is research material intended for in-vitro laboratory work by qualified professionals. Purity percentages, assay lists and certificate libraries describe documentation and nothing else. Nothing in this article is dosing guidance, medical advice, or a recommendation to use any compound outside a controlled laboratory setting.
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.
