How We Evaluate Vendors

Readers deserve to know how a review was put together before deciding how much weight to give it. This page explains how we evaluate peptide vendors at Amino Review: what we examine, how we classify evidence, how we keep reviews current, and how we handle corrections.

One point comes first because it shapes everything else: Amino Review does not operate a laboratory and does not run its own analytical tests. Our reviews assess the documentation, testing transparency, and business practices that vendors make available, and the extent to which that information can be confirmed. If we ever commission independent testing, we will say so explicitly and describe how it was done.

What We Evaluate

Each review uses the same core criteria so that vendors can be compared on a consistent basis. These criteria are also reflected on our vendor reviews and comparisons pages.

1. Documentation

• Whether certificates of analysis are published, and whether they are available before purchase.
• Whether reports are complete or cropped, summarized, or redacted.
• Whether reports are batch-specific and can be matched to product listings and labels.
• Whether reports are reasonably current relative to products being offered.

2. Testing transparency

• Whether the testing laboratory is named and can be identified independently.
• Whether methods, sample descriptions, and testing dates are stated.
• Which questions the testing addresses: purity, identity, quantity, endotoxin, sterility, or others.
• Whether the vendor explains who selects samples and which tests are not performed.

3. Business practices

• Whether the business is identifiable, with a legal name, address, and jurisdiction.
• Whether shipping, return, refund, and privacy policies are written, specific, and dated.
• Whether customer support channels are clearly published.
• Whether product descriptions are consistent with “research use only” labeling, without personal-use or therapeutic claims.
• Whether affiliate, sponsorship, or endorsement relationships are disclosed.

The questions behind each criterion are explained further in our guide to evaluating supplier transparency.

How We Classify Evidence

The most important distinction in our reviews is between information a vendor provides and information that has been confirmed through a source the vendor does not control. We label evidence using the following categories:

• Vendor statement: a claim made by the vendor without supporting documentation, such as “all batches tested.”
• Vendor-supplied document: a document published or provided by the vendor, such as a COA, that we have reviewed but not confirmed with the issuing laboratory.
• Laboratory-confirmed document: a vendor-supplied report that we have confirmed with the issuing laboratory, through its official verification tool or direct correspondence. This confirms the report’s authenticity; it does not make the testing independent, because the vendor still commissioned it and selected the sample.
• Independently commissioned testing: testing arranged and paid for by Amino Review or another party without a financial interest in the result, using product obtained through ordinary retail channels. We will only use this label when we have evidence that such testing took place, and we will describe the sampling and laboratory involved.
• Not available: information we looked for and could not find.

We never describe a product as “independently tested” based on a vendor-supplied report, whether or not it was performed by an outside laboratory. Why this distinction matters is discussed in the role of independent purity testing, and the verification process itself is covered in why COA verification matters.

How a Review Is Conducted

1. Collect public information. We review the vendor’s website, product pages, published documents, policies, and terms, and save copies or records of what we reviewed and when.
2. Review documentation. We read COAs against the checklist in our Testing & Documentation Guide, noting what each report addresses and what it does not.
3. Attempt verification. Where practical, we try to confirm selected reports with the issuing laboratory, locating the laboratory independently. Reports that cannot be confirmed are labeled as unverified, not as false.
4. Check accreditation claims. Where a laboratory claims accreditation, we check the accrediting body’s directory and whether the relevant method appears on the laboratory’s scope.
5. Assess business practices. We review policies and published contact routes, and we note inconsistencies across the site, labels, and documents.
6. Invite vendor input. Where appropriate, we may ask a vendor to clarify or supply missing documentation. Any information received is labeled by its source and evaluated using the same categories.
7. Write and review. Findings are written to separate documented facts from vendor claims and from our own assessments, with limitations stated plainly.

How We Handle Missing Information

When evidence is missing, unclear, or outdated, we say so. We do not assume a vendor meets a criterion because we could not confirm that it fails one. In our reviews, “not available” is a finding in itself, and it is reported as such.

The “Last Verified” Date

Vendor websites, documents, and policies change. Every review carries a last verified date indicating when we most recently checked the information it relies on. Readers should treat details as accurate as of that date and recheck anything important, since a vendor may have changed its pages since then.

We revisit reviews periodically and when we become aware of material changes, such as new documentation, policy changes, or credible reports of problems. When a review is updated, the last verified date changes and significant updates are noted.

Corrections Policy

We aim to get things right and to fix errors openly when we do not.

• Anyone, including vendors, may submit a correction or additional documentation through our contact page.
• We review submissions against the same evidence standards used for the original review.
• Material errors are corrected promptly, and the review notes what was changed and when.
• Minor edits, such as typos or formatting, may be made without a formal correction note.
• Submitting documentation does not guarantee a change in our assessment; the evidence determines the outcome.

What Our Reviews Do Not Do

• We do not run laboratory tests or claim to have tested products unless we have commissioned and documented such testing.
• We do not make claims about human safety, effectiveness, or suitability for personal use.
• We do not provide dosing, administration, or usage guidance of any kind.
• We do not treat any document as proof that every unit, batch, or future product matches what was tested.

Research peptides sold online are generally labeled “for research use only” and are not approved drugs. Our reviews evaluate documentation and business practices; they are not an endorsement of any product or use.

Independence and Affiliate Relationships

Amino Review may earn commissions through qualifying affiliate links, and any such relationships are disclosed. Compensation does not determine our conclusions, and vendors cannot pay for a favorable assessment or for the removal of accurate information.

Key Takeaways

• Amino Review evaluates documentation, testing transparency, and business practices; we do not run our own lab tests.
• Evidence is labeled by source, from vendor statement to laboratory-confirmed document to independently commissioned testing.
• A vendor-supplied report is never described as independent testing.
• Each review carries a “last verified” date, and missing information is reported as missing.
• Corrections are welcome, reviewed against the same standards, and noted when material.

Disclaimer: Our reviews are educational assessments of publicly available information and are not medical, legal, or purchasing advice. Consult qualified professionals and your local regulations.