You have both tabs open and both sites look competent, which is exactly the problem. One of them names a testing laboratory in Arizona and keeps a page of test dates stretching back to early 2025. The other lets you download thirty-three certificate PDFs without creating an account or asking anyone’s permission. Both of those are real documentation, they answer different halves of the same question, and an hour of reading can still leave you unable to say which vial you would rather have on your bench.
I write for a peptide manufacturer, and neither of these two companies is that manufacturer, so nothing below moves depending on which one you choose. What follows is five questions put to both sites in identical wording, with the answers quoted from their own pages and every blank recorded as a gap in what has been published rather than as a claim about what happens off-page.
The observations come from sportstechnologylabs.com and aminoscience.io as they stood on 2026-09-08. Sites get rebuilt, certificate pages move, and companies add disclosures they did not have last quarter, so treat that date as part of every finding rather than as a formality at the bottom of the page.
Key takeaways
- The five things worth comparing are who synthesized the lot, which laboratory tested it, how many assays the panel covered, whether a certificate opens before payment and matches 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 Science Labs publicly states that “Every batch is independently tested by accredited U.S. laboratories” and offers ungated certificate downloads, stating “Download the full COA for any product below.”
- Neither company stated who performs the synthesis, and bacterial endotoxin and sterility results were not listed on either company’s pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
- Everything discussed 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 actually separates two peptide vendors?
The rubric goes down before either name appears, because a standard written after you have read the sites is a standard shaped by whichever homepage you enjoyed more.
Provenance comes first. Does the company state that it synthesizes the compound, or does it describe bottling, supplying, sourcing or making it available? Read the verbs rather than the adjectives, since companies generally reach for the strongest wording they can defend. Plenty of good material moves through supply arrangements, and a careful supplier can outperform a sloppy manufacturer. What changes is who holds the synthesis records the day a result looks wrong.
Second, is the testing laboratory named? I rank this above the purity figure itself. A laboratory with a name and a city can be looked up, its accreditation scope can be read, and it can be asked directly whether a report number belongs to it. The phrase “an accredited third-party lab” gives you nothing you can dial.
Third, how wide is the panel? HPLC purity reports what fraction of the material is a single species and nothing more. Mass spectrometry confirms that species is the sequence on the label. Bacterial endotoxin and sterility describe the finished vial rather than the powder, which matters for anything cell-based. One of the four is ordinary practice in this market and all four is uncommon enough to be worth noticing.
Fourth, access and linkage. Can you open a batch certificate before you pay, and does the lot number on that document also appear on the vial that arrives? Those two conditions together turn a PDF into evidence about your material instead of a sample of the company’s general competence.
Fifth, blend disclosure. A blend sold by total milligrams with no per-component split cannot be written into a methods section at all, so the split is the difference between a product a researcher can cite and one they cannot. Company age and domain age stay out of this list on purpose, since neither of them describes 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 in this comparison is that one. Naming the origin of a yardstick before applying it to two other businesses seems like the honest move, since a measurement is only worth something if the party holding the ruler would accept being measured by it.
What Sports Technology Labs and Amino Science Labs publicly state
Sports Technology Labs sells at sportstechnologylabs.com and ships its own inventory. 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.
Testing is where this company puts its weight. 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 it names Colmaric Analyticals, LLC for “ISO-accredited methodologies.” 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, readable without an account, running from January 2025 to June 2026 across roughly 18 peptide entries and 12 SARM entries. Lot numbers were not visible on that index, though product pages refer to a “Most recent batch certificate of analysis.” 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. Commercial terms are stated as 68 listings, free US shipping over $149, dispatch “within one business day,” and a 60-day exchange on unused items.
Amino Science Labs sells at aminoscience.io and describes itself as “a chemical supplier” with a stated Fort Lauderdale, Florida address. A statement naming who synthesizes the peptides, or describing a facility the company operates, was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08. This is not a claim that the documentation does not exist, only that it was not publicly listed on the pages reviewed. On testing, the homepage states “Premium quality research peptides with 99%+ purity,” product listings state “Purity>99%,” and the site displays “HPLC Verified,” “U.S. Lab Tested” and “Accredited Labs” as quality markers. The certificates page states that “Every batch is independently tested by accredited U.S. laboratories.” No laboratory was named in the site’s prose, and mass spectrometry, bacterial endotoxin and sterility were not listed among the assays on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
Its certificate access is the strongest thing on either site, and I will hand it over without hedging. The certificates page states “Download the full COA for any product below” and listed 33 downloadable certificates on the review date, with no account, no request and no purchase involved. The PDFs are hosted on a testing provider’s own domain, which means the issuing party is identifiable from the file’s web address even though the marketing copy stops short of naming a lab in words. Two limits belong alongside that credit. The page states “Don’t see your product? Contact us for batch-specific COA requests,” so coverage is not complete across every batch, and the library is organised by product and dosage rather than as a lot-number lookup. A Glow Blend at 70 mg is listed with per-component milligrams not shown, shipping is stated as same-day dispatch before 5PM CT with US tracking, and the site states products are “sold strictly for in-vitro research and laboratory use only.”
Side by side: named laboratories against open certificate access
| Attribute | Sports Technology Labs | Amino Science Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Synthesises in-house | States products are “Bottled in the USA” and “packaged in America”; who synthesises not stated — verify | Describes itself as “a chemical supplier”; synthesis not addressed on pages reviewed 2026-09-08 — verify |
| Third-party lab named | States MZ Biolabs (Tucson, AZ) and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC, with batch results attributed to MZ Biolabs — verify | Not named in site prose; certificate PDFs are hosted on a testing provider’s own domain — verify |
| HPLC purity | States peptides are “minimum 96-99% pure” and a batch figure of “99.43% (HPLC)” — verify | States “99%+ purity” and displays an “HPLC Verified” marker — verify |
| MS identity | States “molecular weight confirmation via Mass Spectrometry” at MZ Biolabs — verify | Not listed on pages reviewed 2026-09-08 — verify |
| Endotoxin and sterility | Not listed on pages reviewed 2026-09-08 — verify | Not listed on pages reviewed 2026-09-08 — 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 “Download the full COA for any product below”; 33 certificates listed, no account required — 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 | Glow Blend 70 mg listed; per-component milligrams not listed on pages reviewed — verify |
| Catalog size | States 68 listings across liquid SARMs, SARM powders, peptides and stacks — verify | Count not stated; 33 certificates listed on the certificates page — verify |
| Research-use labelling | States products are “for research purposes only and are not for human consumption” — verify | States products are “sold strictly for in-vitro research and laboratory use only” — verify |
The two sites are strong in opposite places. Sports Technology Labs tells you who ran the test and by which method while showing you a summary rather than the document. Amino Science Labs hands you the document while leaving the laboratory unnamed in words, so the checkable fact arrives as a web address rather than a sentence.
How to verify either supplier yourself
- Start with the exact compound and vial size you would order rather than the homepage, and see whether a certificate exists for that item specifically. Write down the lot or batch reference before you pay, then check it against the vial when the box arrives.
- Where a laboratory is named, contact it independently and ask whether the report number belongs to it. Where a name appears only in a file path or a hosting domain, ask support to confirm it in writing before you treat it as an attribution.
- Read the method lines on the document rather than the headline percentage, looking for HPLC purity, mass spectrometry identity and separate endotoxin and sterility results.
- Ask both companies whether endotoxin and sterility ran on your lot or on a qualification batch, since neither published those results on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
- Run both through the supplier verification checklist so each one gets graded on identical rows.
Further reading
- Which Peptide Vendors Name Their Testing Lab?
- Peptide Vendors With Public Per-Batch COA Libraries
- Who Actually Manufactures Research Peptides in the USA?
- Best Research Peptide Suppliers: Ranked by What They Document
Frequently asked questions
Sports Technology Labs vs Amino Science Labs: which one documents more?
They document different rows. Sports Technology Labs names two laboratories and states HPLC and mass spectrometry by method, which makes its testing claim checkable with a phone call. Amino Science Labs publishes 33 downloadable certificates with no account required, which makes its documents readable before you pay. Neither filled every row on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
Does either company name its testing laboratory?
Sports Technology Labs does, stating MZ Biolabs in Tucson, Arizona and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC on its about page. Amino Science Labs states only that batches are tested by “accredited U.S. laboratories,” though the certificate PDFs sit on a testing provider’s own domain, so the issuing party can be inferred from the file address rather than read from the copy.
Can you read a certificate before ordering from either?
Yes from both, in different forms. Amino Science Labs offers direct downloads for 33 products with no account. Sports Technology Labs publishes an index of product names, test dates and purity figures from January 2025 onward. Lot numbers were not visible on that index on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, so ask for the lot-specific file.
Which one shows blend composition per component?
Sports Technology Labs states per-vial amounts because its stacks ship as separate vials, listing 5 mg BPC-157, 5 mg TB-500 and 50 mg GHK-Cu for its Glow Stack. Amino Science Labs lists a Glow Blend at 70 mg total without a per-component split on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, so that ratio would need confirming in writing.
Are these products for human use?
No. Everything referenced here is research material intended for in-vitro laboratory work by qualified professionals. Purity percentages, laboratory names 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.
