How to Verify a Peptide COA: A Step-by-Step Guide

Last updated October 31, 2026. Amino Review does not run lab tests. The examples below come from COAs we checked against the issuing labs’ own records, as described in How We Evaluate Vendors.

A certificate of analysis (COA) is only as good as its link to the lab that issued it. A PDF on a product page can be genuine, edited, reused from another batch or made up, and it can look the same in every case. Verifying a COA means getting the lab’s own copy of the report and checking that the vendor’s copy says the same thing.

We have checked more than 1,000 vendor COAs this way for our peptide vendor reviews. This guide sets out the eight steps we use, with real examples of what goes wrong. Once you know where to look, each report takes a few minutes. For the background on why this matters, see Why COA Verification Matters.

Step 1: Find the lab name and the report ID

Every lab that offers verification prints an identifier that its own system can look up. Find it first. If a COA has no lab name or report number, or its header or footer is cropped off, you cannot verify it, and it should count as a vendor document only.

These are the identifiers used by the labs that appear most often in our reviews:

• Janoshik Analytical: a task number at the top and a unique key at the bottom. You need both. See How to Verify a Janoshik Report.
• Freedom Diagnostics: a search code made of a client prefix and digits. The lab hosts the matching PDF on coas.freedomdiagnosticstesting.com under that code. Newer reports also carry a QR code.
• Kovera Labs: a report number in the form KVR-2026-… and a QR code that opens the record on koveralabs.com.
• ILS Laboratories: a COA number, an access code and a “Scan to verify” QR code. The lookup is at ils-lab.com/verify.
• Vanguard Laboratory: a Laboratory ID such as V260731-13 004, searchable at verifiedbyvanguard.com.
• Ethos Analytics: reports listed on its verify-coa page.
• Bioviridian: a COA number that matches a PDF on the lab’s own site.

Some COAs can’t be checked at all. True Research Labs’ Horizon Analytical reports print no report number, and their QR code opens a generic lookup page that asks for one.

Step 2: Go to the lab yourself, not through the COA’s link

A QR code, link or email address printed on a COA is part of the document you are trying to check. If the document was edited, those could have been edited too. Find the lab’s website through a search engine, check that the domain is the lab’s own, and use its verification page from there.

QR codes also go wrong by accident. In one vendor library we checked, the QR code on a vendor copy opened a different product’s report at the lab, even though the right report existed. Watch the domain, too. A second site, janoshiklab.com, registered in July 2026, presents itself as Janoshik with its own verification form, and we could not confirm who runs it. Janoshik’s long-standing domain, janoshik.com, dates from 2016.

Some lab pages sit behind a “verify you are human” browser check. That is normal. Open them in an ordinary browser.

Step 3: Compare every field with the lab’s copy

When the lab’s record opens, put it next to the vendor’s copy and go line by line. A matching compound name is not a match. Check:

• product name and vial size
• lot or batch number
• measured amount (mg) for every vial tested
• purity
• dates: received, analysed and reported
• client name (who ordered the test)
• report ID and, where there is one, the vial photo

Real examples from our checks: Precisely Peptides’ Kisspeptin 10 mg report reads 98.37% purity in ILS’s records and 99.37% on the vendor’s PDF. Another Precisely PDF still holds the lab’s original version inside the file, reading “KPV 5 mg” with 4.78 mg measured; the published version reads 10 mg and 10.78 mg. Seven of Precisely’s published COAs contain an earlier lab version with lower results (see our vendor table).

Another vendor, whose review is still in progress, posted a report for a 1000 mg NAD+ vial on its 500 mg product, with the size and the vial photo removed. The lab’s copy measured 558.63 mg: 56% of its own label, but 112% of the label it was posted under.

Check the client field too. A genuine report made out to another company, or to “Anonymous”, proves that a test happened, not that it was the vendor’s product. We have found lab-confirmed reports made out to “Anonymous” in several libraries, and some made out to other brands.

Step 4: Look for edits, and know what a lab reissue looks like

The strongest check is a byte-for-byte match. If the lab serves a PDF and the vendor’s file has the same checksum (for example SHA-256), the two files are identical. All 121 of Nura Peptide’s published COAs match Freedom Diagnostics’ copies this way.

When the files are not identical, look at what differs. Signs of an edit include values that changed in the vendor’s favor, a vial size or product name that changed while the results did not, fonts or spacing that shift on one line, and a vial photo that doesn’t match the label. PDFs can also carry earlier versions inside the file. That is how the original values in Precisely’s seven edited COAs were recovered.

Not every difference is an edit. Labs reissue reports. Kovera re-rendered IDUN Peptides’ reports in October 2026, which changed certified dates and test names, and Freedom re-created some files with corrected lot text and identical results. A difference that doesn’t help the vendor, or that matches the lab’s current record, usually points to the lab. If you can’t tell, ask the lab or the vendor and treat the report as unresolved.

Step 5: Match the report to the product, size and lot

A verified report describes one sample. It tells you about a product only if the lot matches. Check that the lot on the vial or product page is the lot on the report, and that the report is for the same compound and size.

Warning signs from our data: one library used a single lot number on 28 reports covering 24 products, so the “lot” marked a submission date, not a batch. Another linked 10 mg reports on products sold as 11 mg and 12 mg. Peptide Giants’ lab-reports table linked single-compound COAs on four rows labeled as blends.

Check the date as well. A report for a lot that sold out months ago says little about the vial on sale now.

Step 6: Judge the measured amount, not just the purity

Purity and amount are different results. Purity, usually measured by HPLC, is the share of the detected peptide material that is the target compound. Net content, or quantity, is how many milligrams are in the vial. A vial can be 99% pure and still hold far less than its label says. Our HPLC guide explains the difference.

Divide the measured amount by the label amount. If a report gives several vials, check each one, not only the average, and for a blend check each component. We flag lab-confirmed results under 90% of label. Examples:

• Peptide Giants: Kisspeptin-10 5 mg, lot PG-6018, “Estimated Quantity: ~2 mg”, about 40% of label, while the vendor’s table showed only the 97.32% purity.
• Nova Peptides: IGF-1 LR3 1 mg, lot NV-P-ZE8J, 0.79 and 0.84 mg (79–84% of label).
• MyPurePeptide: Epitalon 10 mg, 8.63 mg (86% of label).

Large overfills matter too. We have seen a lab-confirmed blend result at 219% of label. Nobody is shortchanged, but it shows that the label is not a reliable guide to what is in the vial.

Step 7: Check for deleted, unpublished and request-only reports

A library can be fully lab-confirmed and still leave things out. Watch for three patterns:

• Deleted reports. Nova Peptides posted a MOTS-C 40 mg report showing 87.17% purity and 59% of label. An index site recorded it on Nova’s site in August 2026; the file was later deleted, but the lab still holds the report.
• Unpublished reports. Labs with sequential codes can hold reports a vendor never posted. Nura Peptide’s three lowest purities (96.214%, 98.67% and 98.72%) are all in reports on Freedom’s server that are not in Nura’s library.
• Request-only COAs. Some vendors list a lot but send its report only on request. IDUN Peptides does this for 27 lots. When we obtained the links, 26 of the 27 checked out at the labs. A request-only COA isn’t a red flag in itself, but it is unverified until you see it at the lab.

Note, too, when a lab simply can’t find a report. Vanguard and Horizon publish only the reports their clients choose to make public, so a missing record isn’t proof of forgery. Record it as unverified, not as fake.

Step 8: Check what the lab’s accreditation actually covers

ISO/IEC 17025 is the international standard for testing-lab competence, and accreditation applies only to the specific tests listed on a lab’s scope. Check the scope in the accreditation body’s directory, not the logo on the COA.

In our data, almost none of the labs peptide vendors use is accredited for peptide testing:

• Vanguard Laboratory holds A2LA certificate 6377.01, but its scope has no HPLC. It does not cover the purity, identity or quantity results on Vanguard’s peptide COAs, even though those COAs carry an ISO/IEC 17025 mark.
• ILS Laboratories says on its own site that peptide testing is not within any accreditation scope. Its accreditation covers cannabis and hemp testing, yet its COA footers print “ISO/IEC 17025 Accredited”.
• Freedom Diagnostics describes itself as compliant with ISO 9001 and GLP principles, not as ISO/IEC 17025 accredited. Kovera Labs makes no accreditation claim, and Janoshik publishes none.

So we don’t score a lab’s accreditation. We do count a vendor’s false or misleading accreditation claim against it, and we note when a COA’s logo promises more than the scope covers.

What a verified COA still doesn’t tell you

Verification proves the document is the lab’s. It doesn’t prove the sample was typical of the batch, because the vendor chose and sent it. Vanguard’s reports say so directly: the lab “did not observe or participate in the sample selection process, and cannot confirm the authenticity of the sample or its representativeness”. A verified report also adds no tests that weren’t run, so a purity report says nothing about endotoxin or sterility. Our guide to reading third-party lab results covers what each section of a report can show.

Independently commissioned, blind-bought testing is the only way to check what customers actually receive, and we label it separately in our reviews.

How we use these checks

Every review on Amino Review reports how many of a vendor’s COAs we confirmed at the issuing lab and what the confirmed reports show. Compare vendors on our vendor reviews page, or see the steps applied in our reviews of IDUN Peptides (request-only reports), Peptide Giants (accreditation that doesn’t cover the tests), MyPurePeptide (161 Janoshik reports), Nova Peptides (deleted reports) and Nura Peptide (unpublished lab-held reports).

Frequently asked questions

How can you tell if a peptide COA is fake?

Look the report up on the issuing lab’s own verification page, reached through the lab’s website rather than a link on the COA, and compare every field: product, size, lot, amounts, purity, dates and client. If the lab has no record, or its copy differs from the vendor’s, the vendor’s copy is not the lab’s report. Cropped headers, missing report IDs and changed vial sizes are common warning signs.

Can a real COA still be misleading?

Yes. A lab-confirmed report can be for a different lot, size or company, can show an amount well under the label, or can be the best of several results while weaker reports go unpublished. Verification proves the document is genuine. It does not prove the report describes the vial you are looking at.

What should I do if the lab can’t find a COA?

Check that you typed the identifier exactly, including capital letters, and that you used the right lab. Some labs publish only the reports their clients choose to make public, so a missing record is not proof of forgery. Record the COA as unverified and ask the vendor or the lab.

Is a QR code on a COA enough to verify it?

No. The QR code is part of the document, so it can be edited, and some point to a generic page or even the wrong report. Use it as a shortcut only if it opens the lab’s own domain, and still compare every field.

What counts as an underfilled vial on a COA?

Divide the measured amount by the label amount. Amino Review flags lab-confirmed results under 90% of label. Check every vial and every component of a blend, not only the average, because purity can be high while the amount is low.

Does ISO 17025 accreditation make a COA trustworthy?

Not on its own. Accreditation covers only the tests listed on a lab’s scope, and in our checks the scopes of labs used by peptide vendors rarely include peptide purity or quantity. Check the scope with the accreditation body rather than relying on a logo.

Research use only: products discussed here are sold by third-party vendors, labeled for research use only, and are not approved drugs. This guide explains how to check documents; it is not medical, legal, or purchasing advice. See our full disclaimer. Corrections are welcome at contact@aminoreview.com.