Comparing two research suppliers usually goes the same way. You read both sites, both of them say third-party tested and 99% pure, and you finish with a vague sense that one felt more professional without being able to point at anything you could actually check. That feeling isn’t a decision, and it isn’t worth much when the vial arrives.
What follows is an attempt to fix that by using five questions a supplier either answers on its own pages or doesn’t, applied to Swiss Chems and Sports Technology Labs in the same order and with the same weight. There’s no winner declared at the end. I haven’t tested either company’s material, and both of them sell across SARMs and peptides rather than peptides alone, which shapes what their documentation looks like.
I write for a peptide manufacturer and I’ll say plainly where my standard comes from, though 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 figure on its own is close to meaningless; what makes it usable is a named laboratory, a named method, and a lot number that matches the vial in front of you.
- Swiss Chems states that “every compound we supply undergoes independent third-party HPLC testing,” names its principal third-party laboratory in the FAQ, and publishes downloadable reports it describes as “lot-specific.”
- 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 a COA page anyone can open.
- Neither site listed a sterility result on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, and neither states who synthesizes the material it sells.
- 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 more than it sounds, because a rubric built after reading two sites quietly rewards whatever those two sites happen to do well.
Provenance is the first question. Does the company state that it synthesizes the material, or does it describe supplying, bottling, or packaging it? The verbs on an about page carry more information than any adjective near 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? This one is binary and takes seconds to check. 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 lab” offers nothing to check against.
Third, what does the panel actually cover? HPLC purity measures how much of the material is a single compound. Mass spectrometry confirms that compound is the one on the label. Bacterial endotoxin and sterility describe the vial rather than the powder, and they’re the results most often absent from public pages. A supplier publishing purity alone has answered roughly a quarter of the question you’re asking.
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 turn a document into evidence about your specific material.
Fifth, for blends, are the milligrams of each component stated? A total weight and an ingredient list describe something nobody can reproduce. Company age and domain age don’t appear anywhere in this rubric, because neither one tells you anything about a specific lot.
Where this standard comes from
The five checks above didn’t fall out of the sky, so I’ll name their origin. 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 Swiss Chems nor Sports Technology Labs is that company, and knowing the source of the bar lets you disagree with where it sits.
What Swiss Chems publicly states
Swiss Chems operates at swisschems.is. On the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, the homepage describes “Top-quality SARMs, peptides, and nootropics for laboratory research,” carries a “99% Purity Guaranteed” banner, and lists categories including SARMs, peptides, bioregulators, nootropics, powders, bundles, longevity research and metabolics. The peptides category page stated “Showing 16 of 48 products.”
On provenance, the “Who we are” page sits under a “Research Supply” heading, states the company is based in the USA, and states it “has supplied one of the largest research-compound catalogs available anywhere.” The verbs stay on supplying throughout. A statement that Swiss Chems synthesizes the material, or any description of a laboratory it operates, was not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
Testing is where the site gets specific. It states that “every compound we supply undergoes independent third-party HPLC testing” with “99%+ minimum verified purity,” and the FAQ states that “batches are submitted for independent analysis by accredited third-party laboratories,” naming the principal third-party laboratory it uses. The same FAQ answer states that “lab reports are made available so you can verify the material you received. Reports are lot-specific.”
There’s a page behind that claim rather than just a sentence. The Independent Test Results page states “we believe in complete transparency. View and download all lab reports,” shows 50 results per page across several paginated pages, and gives each entry a PDF link, with filenames carrying both the test type and the laboratory. On the BPC-157 and TB-500 blend page, Swiss Chems states per-component amounts of “5mg+5mg” and “10mg+10mg” and lists six reports dated June 2026 covering HPLC, heavy metals, LC-MS and endotoxin. A sterility result, and a lot number printed on that product page, were not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08.
What I’d concede to Swiss Chems is access and breadth together. Reports open without an account or a purchase, and the catalog reaches across compound classes a peptide house doesn’t stock. The FAQ states “USA orders placed and paid before 12PM EST on business days ship the same day,” and the homepage states free shipping over $100 domestically and $300 internationally.
What Sports Technology Labs publicly states
Sports Technology Labs operates at sportstechnologylabs.com, and on the named-laboratory question it’s one of the more forthcoming sites in this category.
On provenance, the about page describes the company as a US-based supplier and gives a headquarters address of “494 Bridgeport Avenue, Suite 101-222, Shelton, CT 06484.” The language across the pages reviewed is about sourcing, testing and supplying rather than synthesizing. A statement that Sports Technology Labs makes the peptides 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 the laboratory question they answer clearly, and they answer it twice. The about page names MZ Biolabs of Tucson, Arizona, describing it as a “US DEA Schedule III licensed facility” and giving the license number RP0584676, and it names Colmaric Analyticals, LLC for what it calls ISO-accredited methodologies. Both High-Performance Liquid Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry are named as the methods used. On purity the about page states that SARMs hold a minimum of 98% and peptides reach up to 99%.
On certificates, the site maintains a public COA page that states “below are our most recent third-party COAs (certificates of analysis)” and splits the listings into SARMs and peptides. On the date reviewed it showed 12 SARM entries and 18 peptide entries, each with a product name, a test date and a purity figure, with dates running from January 2025 to June 2026. Nothing on that page is gated behind a purchase. Lot or batch numbers were not visible in those listings, and the page itself did not attribute individual entries to a named lab. Bacterial endotoxin and sterility results were not listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08, and a single-vial multi-peptide blend with a stated milligram split per component was not listed either.
The concession here is straightforward and it’s the strongest row on their card. Naming two laboratories, one of them with a DEA license number a reader can look up, is more than most vendors in this market will do, and the about page also states a 60-day money-back guarantee, flat $8 domestic shipping with free shipping over $149, and same-day dispatch on most orders. For a buyer who wants a lab they can phone, that’s a real advantage.
Side by side: provenance, named labs and panel width
| Attribute | Swiss Chems | Sports Technology Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Synthesises in-house | States it “has supplied” a large catalog under a “Research Supply” heading; who synthesises — verify | States it is a US-based supplier with a Shelton, CT headquarters; who synthesises — verify |
| Third-party lab named | States and names its principal third-party laboratory in the FAQ | States MZ Biolabs of Tucson, AZ with a DEA license number, and Colmaric Analyticals, LLC |
| HPLC purity | States “independent third-party HPLC testing” and “99%+ minimum verified purity” | States HPLC as a named method, SARMs “minimum 98% purity” and peptides “up to 99%” |
| MS identity | States an LC-MS report on the blend page reviewed; catalog-wide coverage — verify | States Mass Spectrometry among the methods used by its named labs |
| Endotoxin and sterility | States an endotoxin report on the blend page; sterility not listed — verify | Neither listed on the pages reviewed 2026-09-08 — verify |
| Batch COA before purchase | States reports “are lot-specific” and publishes them for download without an account | Publishes a public COA page with product, date and purity; lot numbers not shown — verify |
| Blend mg split disclosed | States “5mg+5mg” and “10mg+10mg” on the BPC-157 and TB-500 blend | Single-vial blends with per-component mg not listed on the pages reviewed — verify |
| Catalog size | States 48 products in the peptides category on the page reviewed | States 12 SARM and 18 peptide entries on its COA page, across liquids, powders and stacks |
| Research-use labelling | States “All products are for laboratory developmental research USE ONLY. Not for human consumption.” | States products are supplied 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 single question separates a testing programme from a testing claim faster than any amount of reading.
- With Sports Technology Labs you can go one step further, since the labs are named. Contact them directly and ask whether a given report number is genuinely theirs.
- Match the lot number on the certificate against the lot number printed on the vial when it arrives. A document with no lot number describes some batch, and you can’t tell whether it’s yours.
- Ask each company about bacterial endotoxin and sterility by name, and ask whether the results came from your lot or from an earlier qualification batch. Those two are the results most often missing.
- Put both suppliers through the supplier verification checklist before committing to 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
Swiss Chems vs Sports Technology Labs: which one documents more?
They lead on different rows. Sports Technology Labs names two laboratories on its about page, one with a DEA license number, and publishes a purity-and-date COA page without a purchase. Swiss Chems names its principal laboratory and publishes downloadable lot-specific reports, including an endotoxin report on the blend page reviewed 2026-09-08.
Can you see a COA before buying from either vendor?
Yes, from both, with a difference in what you get. Swiss Chems publishes downloadable PDF reports it describes as lot-specific. Sports Technology Labs publishes a page listing product names, test dates and purity figures without lot numbers, and describes them as its most recent third-party certificates.
Does either company publish endotoxin or sterility results?
Swiss Chems listed an endotoxin report dated June 2026 on the BPC-157 and TB-500 blend page. 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.
Which vendor discloses blend composition per component?
Swiss Chems does on the blend page reviewed, stating “5mg+5mg” and “10mg+10mg” for its BPC-157 and TB-500 product. On the Sports Technology Labs pages reviewed 2026-09-08 I did not find a single-vial multi-peptide blend with per-component milligrams stated, so that row is worth asking about directly.
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.
