Both of these companies came up in the same forum thread you were reading, which is roughly how most people arrive at this comparison. Both sell SARMs and peptides. Both quote purity figures above 99%. Both have a page about testing that reads like it was written by someone who knows what an instrument is. And you still can’t say which one gives you more to check, because “more professional-looking” isn’t a measurement.
So here’s a different approach. Pick five questions first, answer them in the same order for both companies, and write down only what was actually printed on the page rather than what the page implied. No winner gets declared at the end. I haven’t tested either company’s material, and reading websites tells you about disclosure practice rather than about what’s in a vial.
I write for a peptide manufacturer, and I’d rather name the source of my standard than pretend it’s neutral by accident. Neither company below is that manufacturer. Everything here was publicly readable on the pages I reviewed on 2026-09-08.
Key takeaways
- A purity number by itself is close to unusable; what makes it mean something is a named laboratory, a named method, and a lot number that matches the vial in front of you.
- Sports Technology Labs names MZ Biolabs of Tucson, Arizona with a DEA license number and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC, states HPLC and mass spectrometry as its methods, and publishes an ungated certificate page.
- Umbrella Labs states HPLC and LC/GC-MS methods with named instrument classes, and its linked certificate PDFs carry a laboratory name and a laboratory director’s name even where the site copy stays quiet.
- 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?
Setting the criteria before naming either company matters, because a rubric built after reading two sites quietly rewards whatever those two sites already do well.
Provenance is first. Does the company state that it synthesizes the material, or does it describe supplying, sourcing, packaging 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 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. A named lab has an address, a phone number and staff who will confirm whether a report number is theirs. An unnamed “accredited third-party laboratory” leaves you nothing to check against, however specific the surrounding copy sounds.
Third, how wide is the panel? HPLC purity measures how much of the powder is one 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 absent from public pages. A supplier publishing purity alone has answered about a quarter of what you asked.
Fourth, can you read a batch certificate before paying, and does its lot number appear on the vial that arrives? Both halves together are what convert a document into evidence about your material specifically. One half alone is a gesture.
Fifth, for blends, are the milligrams of each component stated? A total weight plus an ingredient list describes something no one can reproduce or dose against. Company age and domain age don’t appear in this rubric anywhere, because neither tells you a thing about a specific lot.
Where this standard comes from
Those five checks came from somewhere and I’d rather 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 given per component. Neither company in this comparison is that manufacturer, and knowing where the bar came from lets you decide whether it sits at the right height.
What Sports Technology Labs publicly states
Sports Technology Labs operates at sportstechnologylabs.com, and on the laboratory question it is unusually direct for 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.” The verbs across the pages I read 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 row is where they’re ahead of most of the field, and they answer it 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 and 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 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 with 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, and a single-vial blend with a milligram split per component wasn’t listed either.
The concession here is straightforward. Naming two laboratories, one with a DEA license number a reader can look up without asking anyone’s permission, is more than most vendors will do at all. 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 Umbrella Labs publicly states
Umbrella Labs operates at umbrellalabs.is, which resolved normally on 2026-09-08.
On provenance, the homepage states “USA MADE,” “≥99% PURITY” and “FREE SHIPPING,” and lists SARMs, peptides, nootropics, research chemicals, lab supplies, amino acids and probiotic strains among its categories. That “USA MADE” phrase is the whole of the manufacturing claim. A facility, a location, or any description of a synthesis process was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, and the FAQ doesn’t address who makes the product. So both companies land in the same place on this row by different routes.
On testing, the quality-assurance page is more specific about instruments than almost anything else in this market. It states the company employs “High Performance Liquid Chromatography and Liquid/Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry,” that “routine analyses are conducted in a CLIA environment using a flexible range of Thermo Scientific and Agilent modalities,” and it lists a 3D trap LC-MS, a triple quadrupole GC-MS and a linear ion trap LC-MS. The page also states the company is “the only supplier of SARMs with third-party purity validation from analytical chemists credentialed by the National Certification Commission in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,” and the FAQ states products “are tested in house and by 3rd parties for purity and generally average over 99% pure.” A laboratory name was not listed on the quality-assurance or FAQ pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
The documents fill part of that gap themselves, which is worth noticing because it’s a different pattern from the one Sports Technology Labs uses. The PDFs linked from the BPC-157 page carry the name “Vanguard Laboratory” and a laboratory director’s name, so the issuer is identifiable from the certificate even where the site copy doesn’t say it. That page states “≥99% Pure (LC-MS)” and links a 5mg certificate dated 2026-06-15, a 10mg certificate dated 2025-12-22, and an endotoxin report dated 2026-02-04. The 5mg certificate reports chromatographic purity by HPLC-UV/VIS of 98.22% for lot ULP-20409A, and the endotoxin report states “Pass – <5.00 EU/mg” by LAL for lot ULP-20409. An MS identity result and a sterility result were not listed on the documents I reviewed.
Catalog and blend disclosure are where I’ll concede outright, and it isn’t close. The peptides section listed 108 peptide vials, 20 vial blends and 23 liquid sprays alongside capsule, tablet and GLP subcategories, and blend titles carry the split in the product name, as in “GLOW GHK-CU/TB-500/BPC-157 BLEND PEPTIDE (70MG/10MG/10MG) 90MG VIAL,” with that blend page linking its own certificate dated 2026-07-09. The site also states free expedited shipping within the United States only, a one-time replacement guarantee for lost or damaged shipments, and dispatch within 24 to 48 hours of order receipt.
Side by side: where the lab name lives and what the panel covers
| Attribute | Sports Technology Labs | Umbrella Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Synthesises in-house | States a US-based operation with a Shelton, CT headquarters; who synthesises — verify | States “USA MADE”; no facility or synthesis description listed on the pages reviewed — verify |
| Third-party lab named | States MZ Biolabs of Tucson, AZ with DEA license RP0584676, and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC | Site copy names no lab; linked certificates carry “Vanguard Laboratory” and a director’s name — verify |
| HPLC purity | States HPLC for impurity detection, peptides “up to 99% purity” | States HPLC-UV/VIS purity of 98.22% on lot ULP-20409A against a “≥99% PURITY” site claim — verify |
| MS identity | States Mass Spectrometry to confirm chemical identity | States LC-MS and GC-MS capability; an MS identity result on the certificates reviewed — verify |
| Endotoxin and sterility | Neither listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08 — verify | States an endotoxin report “Pass – <5.00 EU/mg” for lot ULP-20409; sterility not listed — verify |
| Batch COA before purchase | Publishes an ungated page of product, test date and purity; lot numbers not shown — verify | Links dated PDFs from product pages carrying lot numbers; catalog-wide coverage — verify |
| Blend mg split disclosed | Single-vial blends with per-component mg not listed on the pages reviewed — verify | States splits in blend product titles, such as “(70MG/10MG/10MG) 90MG VIAL” |
| Catalog size | States 12 SARM and 20 peptide certificate entries across liquids, powders and stacks | States 108 peptide vials, 20 vial blends and 23 liquid sprays in the peptides section |
| Research-use labelling | States products are supplied for laboratory research use only | States products are sold for laboratory research use only |
How to verify either supplier yourself
- Email both companies and ask for the certificate covering the exact lot they’d ship you this week. That one question separates a testing programme from a testing claim faster than any amount of page-reading.
- 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 Umbrella Labs, open the PDF rather than trusting the product-page summary, since the issuing laboratory and the lot number live inside the document. Check that the purity figure on the certificate matches the claim on the page.
- Match the lot number on whatever certificate you’re given against the number printed on the vial when it arrives, and ask both companies about bacterial endotoxin and sterility by name, including which lot each answer covers.
- Run both suppliers through the supplier verification checklist before a first order.
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 Umbrella Labs: which one documents more?
They answer different rows well. Sports Technology Labs names two laboratories in its site copy, one with a DEA license number. Umbrella Labs publishes lot-numbered PDFs whose issuing laboratory is identifiable from the document itself, plus an endotoxin report and blend splits in product titles. Neither named a synthesizer on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
Can you see a certificate before buying from either vendor?
Yes from both, in different formats. Sports Technology Labs publishes an ungated page of 32 entries showing product name, test date and purity. Umbrella Labs links dated PDF certificates from individual product pages, and those documents carry lot numbers such as ULP-20409A, which the Sports Technology Labs listing page did not show.
Does either company name its testing laboratory?
Sports Technology Labs names MZ Biolabs of Tucson, Arizona with license number RP0584676 and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC on its about page. Umbrella Labs named no laboratory in the copy on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, though the certificates linked from its BPC-157 page carry “Vanguard Laboratory” and a laboratory director’s name.
Which vendor discloses blend composition per component?
Umbrella Labs does, and clearly. Blend product titles carry the split, as in “GLOW GHK-CU/TB-500/BPC-157 BLEND PEPTIDE (70MG/10MG/10MG) 90MG VIAL,” which is enough to calculate a working concentration from the listing alone. A single-vial blend with per-component milligrams was not listed on the Sports Technology Labs pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
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.
