The honest version of this problem is that you can’t audit a supplier from a browser tab. What you can do is find out what a company is willing to put in writing where anyone can read it, which is a weaker signal than an audit but a much stronger one than a testimonial. Companies that publish specifics have decided to be held to them, and companies that publish adjectives have decided not to be.
So the method here is narrow on purpose. Five questions, fixed before either site is opened, applied in the same order to both companies, answered only from what appeared on the page. Sports Technology Labs and PSPeptides both get the same treatment. There’s no winner at the end, because I haven’t tested either company’s material and a documentation review can’t tell you what’s in a vial.
I write for a peptide manufacturer and I’ll say where the standard comes from rather than let it read as neutral by default. Neither company here is that manufacturer. Every observation below was publicly readable on the pages I reviewed on 2026-09-08.
Key takeaways
- A purity percentage alone tells you very little; a named laboratory, a named method and a lot number matching your vial are what make the number 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.
- PSPeptides states HPLC and mass spectrometry testing by independent accredited laboratories and publishes dated batch reports it describes as covering heavy metals, endotoxin and sterility alongside the certificate.
- Neither site named the entity that performs the synthesis on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, and only one of them named a laboratory.
- Everything referenced here is research material for in-vitro laboratory work by qualified professionals.
Which five questions decide a documentation comparison?
Setting the criteria before naming either company matters, because a rubric written after reading two sites quietly rewards whatever those two sites already happen to do well.
Provenance is first. Does the company state that it synthesizes the material, or does it describe supplying, manufacturing-through-partners, shipping or distributing it? The verbs on an about page carry more information than any adjective near them. Distribution is a legitimate business and plenty of distributors are careful, but a distributor’s certificate begins with an upstream party whose identity you may never be given.
Second, is the testing laboratory named? Binary, and it takes seconds to check. A named lab has an address, a phone number and staff who will confirm whether a report number belongs to them. An unnamed “independent, accredited laboratory” is a description of a category rather than of anyone you can reach.
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 are the two results most often absent from public pages. A supplier publishing purity alone has answered roughly a quarter of the question you asked.
Fourth, can you read a batch certificate before you pay, and does its lot number appear on the vial that arrives? Both halves together are what turn a document into evidence about your specific material rather than a general statement of intent.
Fifth, for blends, are the milligrams of each component stated? A total weight plus an ingredient list describes something nobody can reproduce. Company age and domain age appear nowhere in this rubric, because neither one tells you anything about a specific lot.
Where this standard comes from
The five checks have an origin and it’s fairer to name it than to hide 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 where the bar came from lets you argue with its height.
What Sports Technology Labs publicly states
Sports Technology Labs operates at sportstechnologylabs.com, and it answers the laboratory question more directly than most sites in this category do.
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.
On testing, they name two laboratories rather than gesturing at a category. 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,” which states “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, running from 31 January 2025 to 10 June 2026. Lot or batch numbers were not among those fields, and individual entries weren’t attributed to either named laboratory on that page. Bacterial endotoxin and sterility results were not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, and a single-vial blend with a per-component milligram split wasn’t listed either.
The concession is straightforward. Naming two laboratories, one with a DEA license number a reader can look up independently, is more than most vendors in this market will do, and it’s the one row where a buyer can verify something without the vendor’s cooperation. 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 PSPeptides publicly states
PSPeptides trades at pspeptides.com, and on panel width it’s the more forthcoming of the two.
On provenance, the about page states that “all our peptides are manufactured in the United States and shipped from US facilities with same-day processing,” and describes “over 5 years in business and a dedicated 25-person team based in New Jersey.” A statement identifying the entity that performs the synthesis, or describing a facility the company operates itself, was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08. So the country is answered and the operator is left open, which is where Sports Technology Labs sits too, though PSPeptides gives you a headcount and a state to work with.
On testing, the about page states that “every peptide is verified through HPLC and Mass Spectrometry testing by independent, accredited laboratories,” that “certificates of analysis are available for every product,” and that the company never self-certifies because “all testing is done by third-party labs.” A “99%+ purity” standard is stated with a remedy attached: if a peptide doesn’t meet it, the company states it will replace it free of charge. The certifications page states “High-Performance Liquid Chromatography testing on every batch to verify peptide identity and purity levels of 99% or higher,” and that mass spectrometry analysis confirms molecular weight and structural integrity.
Certificate access is where PSPeptides earns the stronger concession, and I’ll give it plainly. The certifications page lists certificates across 50+ products including Retatrutide, Tirzepatide, Semaglutide, BPC-157, TB-500, NAD+ and a range of blends and oral or topical formulations, with report identifiers such as PSP-0029123, NAD-0024135 and PSP-0028013 tied to specific months and dosages, as in “Jul 2026 · 40mg COA.” The page states that for each product there is a set of “Third-party Certificate of Analysis, Heavy Metals, Endotoxin, and Sterility reports,” and that certificates are also available on each product page. Separate endotoxin and sterility documents, referenced openly and without a purchase, cover the two rows that are hardest to bluff and that Sports Technology Labs did not list at all. The laboratory itself was not named, with the page stating only that testing is performed by independent, accredited laboratories, which is the row where Sports Technology Labs is ahead.
On catalog and shipping, blend composition per component was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08. Shipping is stated as same-day dispatch before 2PM EST, with free UPS 2nd Day Air above $200 and delivery to the US, Canada, the EU, the UK and Australia, which is broader geographic coverage than the domestic-focused terms on the other site.
Side by side: panel depth and what each site publishes before you pay
| Attribute | Sports Technology Labs | PSPeptides |
|---|---|---|
| Synthesises in-house | States a US-based operation with a Shelton, CT headquarters; who synthesises — verify | States peptides are “manufactured in the United States”; the synthesising entity — verify |
| Third-party lab named | States MZ Biolabs of Tucson, AZ with DEA license RP0584676, and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC | States “independent, accredited laboratories”; no laboratory named on the pages reviewed — verify |
| HPLC purity | States HPLC for impurity detection, peptides “up to 99% purity” | States HPLC “on every batch” for identity and purity “of 99% or higher” |
| MS identity | States Mass Spectrometry to confirm chemical identity | States mass spectrometry confirms molecular weight and structural integrity |
| Endotoxin and sterility | Neither listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08 — verify | States “Heavy Metals, Endotoxin, and Sterility reports” per product; document contents — verify |
| Batch COA before purchase | Publishes an ungated page of product, test date and purity; lot numbers not shown — verify | States dated reports with identifiers such as PSP-0029123, viewable without purchase — verify |
| Blend mg split disclosed | Single-vial blends with per-component mg not listed on the pages reviewed — verify | Per-component mg for blends not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08 — verify |
| Catalog size | States 12 SARM and 20 peptide certificate entries across liquids, powders and stacks | States certificates across 50+ products including peptides, blends and oral or topical forms |
| Research-use labelling | States products are supplied for laboratory research use only | States products are supplied for laboratory research use only |
How to verify either supplier yourself
- Ask both companies for the certificate covering the exact lot they’d ship you this week, then check that the number on it matches the vial that arrives.
- With Sports Technology Labs, use the named labs. Call MZ Biolabs or Colmaric Analyticals and ask whether a given report number is genuinely theirs.
- With PSPeptides, open the endotoxin and sterility documents rather than the summary line, and check the date on each against the batch you’d be sent, since an old qualification run and a current lot are different things.
- Ask both companies which laboratory ran your compound, and ask whether the same lab does purity and identity or whether those are split across facilities.
- Run both suppliers through the supplier verification checklist before committing to 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 PSPeptides: which one documents more?
They lead on different rows. PSPeptides states a wider panel, referencing heavy metals, endotoxin and sterility reports per product alongside HPLC and mass spectrometry. Sports Technology Labs names two laboratories, one with a DEA license number. Neither named the entity performing the synthesis on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
Can you see a certificate before buying from either vendor?
Yes from both. Sports Technology Labs publishes an ungated page of 32 entries showing product name, test date and purity. PSPeptides lists dated reports with identifiers such as PSP-0029123 across 50+ products and states certificates also appear on each product page, so you can read before paying either way.
Does either company publish endotoxin or sterility results?
PSPeptides states a set of third-party certificate, heavy metals, endotoxin and sterility reports for each listed product. Sports Technology Labs listed neither endotoxin nor sterility on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08. Open the actual documents on the PSPeptides side and check that the dates line up with a current batch.
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 on its about page. PSPeptides states that all testing is done by independent, accredited laboratories without naming one on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, so ask which lab issued the report for your compound.
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.
