You’ve probably noticed that every research supplier’s quality page reads like it was assembled from the same box of parts, and the lines are always third-party tested, 99%+ purity, independent labs, batch tested. After the third site the phrases stop registering as information at all, and you’re left choosing on vibes, which is a bad way to spend money on material you’re going to build a week of work around.
The way out is to decide what an answer looks like before you start reading. Five questions, applied in the same order to both companies, with answers restricted to what was actually printed rather than what the copy gestured at. Here that’s Sports Technology Labs and Ascend Bio Labs. Nobody is declared the winner. I haven’t tested either company’s material, and this is a review of what they disclose rather than of what they ship.
I write for a peptide manufacturer, and I’d rather name where my standard comes from than let it pass for neutral. Neither company below is that manufacturer. Every observation was publicly readable on the pages I reviewed on 2026-09-08.
Key takeaways
- A purity figure standing alone is close to useless; a named laboratory, a named method and a lot number matching your vial are what make it checkable.
- Sports Technology Labs names MZ Biolabs of Tucson, Arizona with a DEA license number and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC, states HPLC and mass spectrometry, and publishes an ungated certificate listing.
- Ascend Bio Labs states “third-party HPLC + LC-MS, endotoxin, and heavy metal testing on every batch,” and states that every vial carries a unique batch ID linking to its public certificate.
- Neither site named the entity that performs the synthesis, and neither published a sterility result on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
- Everything referenced here is research material for in-vitro laboratory work by qualified professionals.
Which five questions decide a documentation comparison?
Fixing the criteria before naming either company matters, because a rubric assembled after reading two sites quietly rewards whatever those two sites already do well.
Provenance comes first. Does the company state that it synthesizes the material, or does it describe supplying, sourcing, shipping or distributing it? The verbs on an about page carry more information than any adjective sitting next to them. Distribution is a legitimate business and there are careful distributors, but a distributor’s certificate begins with an upstream party whose identity you may not have.
Second, is the testing laboratory named? Binary and fast to check. A named lab has an address, a phone number and staff who will tell you whether a report number is theirs. An unnamed “third-party lab” leaves you holding a phrase.
Third, how wide is the panel? HPLC purity measures how much of the powder is a single compound. Mass spectrometry confirms that compound is the one on the label. Bacterial endotoxin and sterility describe the finished vial rather than the powder, and those two are the results most often missing from public pages. A supplier publishing purity alone has answered about a quarter of what you asked. Heavy metals sit outside the core four but they’re a reasonable extra.
Fourth, can you read a batch certificate before you pay, and does its lot number appear on the vial that arrives? Both conditions together are what convert a document into evidence about your specific material.
Fifth, for blends, are the milligrams of each component stated? A total weight with an ingredient list underneath describes something nobody can reproduce or calculate a concentration from. Company age and domain age appear nowhere in this rubric, because neither says anything about a specific lot.
Where this standard comes from
The five checks came from somewhere, so I’ll name it. They’re the criteria Blank Peptides publishes its own lots against: synthesis in an in-house cGMP laboratory, testing laboratories named on the site, a per-lot panel covering identity, purity, bacterial endotoxin and sterility, batch certificates of analysis tied to the lot number printed on the vial, and blend composition disclosed per component. Neither company in this comparison is that manufacturer, and knowing the origin of the bar lets you disagree with where it sits.
What Sports Technology Labs publicly states
Sports Technology Labs operates at sportstechnologylabs.com, and on the named-laboratory row it’s among the most forthcoming sites in this market.
On provenance, the about page describes a US-based operation and gives a headquarters address of “494 Bridgeport Avenue, Suite 101-222, Shelton, CT 06484.” Across the pages I read, the verbs stay on sourcing, testing and supplying. A statement that the company performs the synthesis itself, or a named manufacturing partner, 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.
The laboratory question gets answered twice over. The about page names MZ Biolabs of Tucson, Arizona, describing it as a “US DEA Schedule III licensed facility (License: RP0584676),” and names Colmaric Analyticals, LLC, crediting it with “over 15 years of scientific expertise.” High-Performance Liquid Chromatography is named as the method for detecting impurities, Mass Spectrometry as the method that confirms chemical identity. On purity the page states that “SARMs maintain a minimum 98% purity and peptides reach up to 99% purity.”
Certificates sit on a public page headed “Certificates of Analysis,” stating that “as part of our continuous commitment to quality, we test every batch of our SARMs for a minimum of 98% purity. Below are our most recent third-party COAs (certificates of analysis) for each product.” On the review date it listed 12 SARM entries and 20 peptide entries, each showing a product name, a test date and a purity figure, dated from 31 January 2025 through 10 June 2026. Lot or batch numbers weren’t among those fields, which is the gap that matters on this row, since a listing without a lot number tells you a compound was tested rather than that your vial was. Bacterial endotoxin and sterility results were not listed on the pages reviewed, and a single-vial blend with a per-component milligram split wasn’t listed either.
The concession is the naming, and it’s real. A DEA license number a reader can look up without asking anybody’s permission is more disclosure than most of this market offers. The about page also states a 60-day money-back guarantee, flat $8 domestic shipping with free shipping above $149, same-day dispatch on most orders and typical US delivery in two to five business days.
What Ascend Bio Labs publicly states
Ascend Bio Labs trades at ascendbiolabs.com, and its documentation is unusually specific about testing, which also makes the remaining gaps easier to see.
On provenance, the site states products are “synthesized, tested, and shipped entirely from the United States” and refers to a “100% domestic supply chain,” with the shop header stating “research-grade peptides. Third-party tested. Batch-level certificates of analysis. USA-made.” A statement naming the entity that performs the synthesis, or describing a facility the company operates, was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08. Country answered, operator not, which is where Sports Technology Labs lands as well.
On testing this is the strongest part of the site, and it’s the concession I’ll give without hedging. It states “third-party HPLC + LC-MS, endotoxin, and heavy metal testing on every batch,” clarifying the roles as HPLC for purity and LC-MS for identity. Purity is stated as a “99%+ minimum purity standard,” with “99.3% Avg. verified purity” quoted as an aggregate. That covers purity, identity and endotoxin by method, plus heavy metals, which is three of the four core rows and one extra, against the two rows Sports Technology Labs states. A sterility result was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, and the testing laboratory was not named in the site copy, which is the row where Sports Technology Labs is clearly ahead.
On certificate access, the site states that every vial carries a unique batch ID linking to its public certificate, and that the certificate is stamped with the batch number, test date and lab name and uploaded to the product page before any vial from that lot ships. Products in the shop carry a “COA Verified” marker. That’s a strong access claim, and if the document genuinely carries the issuing laboratory’s name then the lab-name row is answered at the document level even where the copy stays quiet. A dedicated certificate index page did not resolve during the review, so the practical test is to open the product page for the compound you want and see what’s attached to it.
On catalog and blends, the shop listed roughly 42 products on 2026-09-08, though the homepage stated both “38+ compounds in catalog” and “27+ compounds in catalog” in different places, which I’d note as an inconsistency and nothing heavier than that. Blends include a Wolverine Blend described as “BPC-157 + TB-500” at 20 mg total with no per-component split listed, a CJC no DAC and Ipamorelin blend stated as 5 mg and 5 mg, and a stack listing 10 mg Retatrutide, 10 mg MOTS-c, 10 mg BPC-157 and 50 mg GHK-Cu. Shipping is stated as same-day dispatch before 2pm CT, insulated and tracked with signature on delivery, free above $300, with standard delivery in two to four business days.
Side by side: panel width and batch linkage
| Attribute | Sports Technology Labs | Ascend Bio Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Synthesises in-house | States a US-based operation with a Shelton, CT headquarters; who synthesises — verify | States products are “synthesized, tested, and shipped entirely from the United States”; by whom — verify |
| Third-party lab named | States MZ Biolabs of Tucson, AZ with DEA license RP0584676, and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC | States certificates are “stamped with… lab name”; no lab named in site copy — verify |
| HPLC purity | States HPLC for impurity detection, peptides “up to 99% purity” | States third-party HPLC for purity against a “99%+ minimum purity standard” |
| MS identity | States Mass Spectrometry to confirm chemical identity | States LC-MS for identity on every batch |
| Endotoxin and sterility | Neither listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08 — verify | States endotoxin and heavy metal testing on every batch; sterility not listed — verify |
| Batch COA before purchase | Publishes an ungated page of product, test date and purity; lot numbers not shown — verify | States every vial carries a batch ID linking to its public COA; index page did not resolve — verify |
| Blend mg split disclosed | Single-vial blends with per-component mg not listed on the pages reviewed — verify | States 5 mg and 5 mg for one blend; Wolverine Blend listed at 20 mg total with no split — verify |
| Catalog size | States 12 SARM and 20 peptide certificate entries across liquids, powders and stacks | Roughly 42 products listed; homepage stated both “38+” and “27+ compounds in catalog” |
| Research-use labelling | States products are supplied for laboratory research use only | States products are research-grade and supplied for laboratory research use |
How to verify either supplier yourself
- Ask both companies for the certificate covering the exact lot they’d ship you this week. That single question separates a testing programme from a testing claim faster than any amount of reading.
- With Sports Technology Labs, use the named labs. Contact MZ Biolabs or Colmaric Analyticals and ask whether a given report number is genuinely theirs.
- With Ascend Bio Labs, open a product page for the compound you want and check whether a certificate is attached, since the certificate index did not resolve on the review date. Then look inside the document for the lab name the copy promises.
- Match the lot or batch number you’re given against the number printed on the vial when it arrives, and ask both companies about sterility by name, since neither published it.
- Run both suppliers through the supplier verification checklist before a first order.
Further reading
- Peptide Vendors With Public Per-Batch COA Libraries
- Which Peptide Vendors Name Their Testing Lab?
- Who Actually Manufactures Research Peptides in the USA?
- Best Research Peptide Suppliers: Ranked by What They Document
Frequently asked questions
Sports Technology Labs vs Ascend Bio Labs: which one documents more?
They lead on different rows. Ascend Bio Labs states a wider panel, covering HPLC purity, LC-MS identity, endotoxin and heavy metals, and ties certificates to batch IDs. Sports Technology Labs names two laboratories, one with a DEA license number. Neither named a synthesizer or published sterility on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
Can you see a certificate before buying from either vendor?
Sports Technology Labs publishes an ungated page of 32 entries showing product name, test date and purity, with no lot numbers. Ascend Bio Labs states that certificates are uploaded to the product page before any vial from that lot ships, though its dedicated certificate index did not resolve on 2026-09-08, so check the product page directly.
Does either company publish endotoxin or sterility results?
Ascend Bio Labs states endotoxin and heavy metal testing on every batch. Sports Technology Labs listed neither endotoxin nor sterility on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08. Neither company published a sterility result anywhere I looked, so ask both directly and ask which lot the answer applies to.
Does either company name its testing laboratory?
Sports Technology Labs does, naming MZ Biolabs of Tucson, Arizona with license number RP0584676 and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC. Ascend Bio Labs states its certificates are stamped with a lab name without naming one in the site copy, so the answer may sit inside the document rather than on the page.
Are these products for human use?
No. Everything referenced here is research material for in-vitro laboratory work by qualified professionals. Nothing in this article is dosing guidance or medical advice, and neither company presents its products for human or veterinary use on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
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.
