Nova Peptides Review: 157 Lab-Confirmed COAs, Underfilled Vials and Deleted Reports

Last verified October 31, 2026. Amino Review does not run lab tests. Every finding below is labeled by its source, as described in How We Evaluate Vendors. Nova Peptides (novapeptidesupply.com) says it is run by Nova Peptide Supply LLC. It is not the same business as Nova Life Peptides.

The short verdict

Evidence label: Laboratory-confirmed document. Grade: C (5/10). Nova Peptides publishes one of the largest COA libraries we have checked: 180 certificates covering every product and size, with the newest dated October 27, 2026. We confirmed 157 of them (87%) against the labs’ own records, and we found no edited copies. The grade is held back by what those confirmed reports show. The current IGF-1 LR3 lot measures 79% of label, and older NAD+ and Glutathione lots measure 75% and 88%. A MOTS-C lot that tested at 87% purity and 59% of label was posted on the site and later deleted. The site also says every batch goes to an ISO 17025-accredited lab, that failed batches are never released, and that its products are at least 99% pure. None of those claims holds up. All sales are final.

Each of those costs points under our rubric. Without the underfills, Nova would score 7 (B). See our vendor comparison for how grades are calculated.

What the COAs actually show

Where the reports come from

Nova’s COA library at novapeptidesupply.com/coas/ is public, needs no login and can be searched by batch number. On October 31 it listed 180 certificates for 47 products, dated November 2, 2025 to October 27, 2026, across 61 report dates. 131 are from Freedom Diagnostics, which tests most of the peptides. 41 are from Ethos Analytics, which tests the capsules, nasal sprays and bacteriostatic water, and since October some peptides. Eight older reports are from Vanguard Laboratory. Each product page links the current lot’s certificate.

We checked every report against the issuing lab. Lab-confirmed: 126 of the 131 Freedom reports are on Freedom’s server. 120 match the vendor’s file byte for byte. The other six show a slightly different lot code or an extra line, and the lab re-created its file with identical results, so we read them as lab corrections, not edits. 31 of the 41 Ethos reports are byte-for-byte identical to Ethos’s portal. Vendor document: five Freedom codes are not on the lab’s server, ten Ethos reports are not on its portal, and none of the eight Vanguard reports can be looked up. That makes 157 of 180 confirmed. Confirmed reports are real, but they are not independent: Nova chose and sent the samples.

Reports the library leaves out, or removed

Freedom’s search codes run in sequence, so we requested about 5,700 codes around every known Nova batch. Lab-confirmed: nine more reports made out to Nova Peptides are on Freedom’s server but not in the library. Most are harmless: partial reports, a new Selank lot not yet posted, and first tests of lots that were later retested with better results. One is not. MOTS-C 40 mg, lot NV-P-O9NB (July 2, 2026): 87.17% purity and 23.7 mg, 59% of label. Nova did post it: the index site Disclosed Labs recorded it on Nova’s site on August 2. That file now returns “not found”.

Disclosed Labs also recorded a Tesamorelin 20 mg report, lot NV-P-G8YE, at 79.84% purity and 14.71 mg (74%), tested June 30. That file has been deleted too, and we could not find it at the lab, so it is unconfirmed. A KPV report from July that reads “Identity: Failed” is still on Nova’s server but not in the library. The site says that “Every batched product we ship is published here” and that failed batches “never enter the catalog”.

What is tested, and what is not

• Freedom reports (most peptides): HPLC purity, identity by LC-MS, measured content, and endotoxin (LAL) on 125 of 132. Two vials per lot on nearly all reports; a few of the earliest (late 2025) give a single value.
• Ethos reports (capsules, sprays, BAC water, some October peptides): HPLC with identity by retention time only, not mass spectrometry. Heavy metals (ICP-MS) on 27, a microbial screen on 35, endotoxin on 15, a fentanyl screen on 5, and a “rapid sterility” qPCR test on four nasal sprays. That test is a DNA screen, not the compendial USP <71> sterility test.
• No USP <71> sterility test appears anywhere, though the bacteriostatic water page says every batch is “tested to USP 71 sterility standards”.

Accreditation

Nova says “Every batch we ship is tested by an independent, ISO/IEC 17025-accredited laboratory”, and the claim appears on dozens of product pages. Freedom Diagnostics, which tests most batches, claims no ISO 17025 accreditation. Ethos holds an accreditation whose scope does not include peptide HPLC, and Vanguard’s does not cover HPLC either. Almost no lab is accredited for peptide testing, so we do not score accreditation, but a false accreditation claim costs the claims point.

Results worth reading closely

• IGF-1 LR3 1 mg, current lot NV-P-ZE8J (lab-confirmed): 0.79 and 0.84 mg, 79–84% of label (June 2026). This is the certificate on the product page today. The March 2026 lot, NV-P-0FU2, measured 0.81 and 0.79 mg.
• NAD+ 500 mg, lot NV-P-AU80 (lab-confirmed): 375.94 and 380.16 mg, 75% of label (March 2026). A November 2025 lot that is not on the lab’s server reads 86%. The current lot, NV-P-5DTW, measures 107%.
• Glutathione 600 mg, lot NV-P-GW79 (lab-confirmed): 528 and 531 mg, 88% of label (February 2026). A later Glutathione report, for lot NV-P-MHC1, reads “Identity: Failed… Purity 0.00%”. It is published in the library but not on the lab’s server, and Ethos later measured the same lot at 623 mg. We do not count a failed or zero result as an underfill.
• Purity on published reports never falls below our 95% threshold, but it does fall below the site’s “≥99% purity by default”: IGF-1 LR3 at 96.99% and 97.05%, Kisspeptin at 97.19%. The deleted MOTS-C and Tesamorelin reports read 87.17% and 79.84%.
• Overfills are common: BPC-157 in a 5/5 mg BPC-157/TB-500 blend at 9.01 mg (180%), AOD-9604 5 mg at 7.91 mg (158%), Ipamorelin 146%, Tesamorelin 143%, Melanotan II 140%, and many results at 130–137%. We note these but do not penalize them. They do mean the label is not a reliable guide to what is in the vial.
• Right product: every product page links a certificate for the matching product and size.

Lot numbers and coverage

Lots are product-specific codes such as NV-P-ZE8J, and none is used on two products. The library itself mistypes several of them (0ZAE listed as OZAE, GC80 as GC8O, 13TV as I3TV), and four vendor copies carry an older lot text than the lab’s current file, so match the code on your vial to the PDF, not to the list. Coverage is complete: all 46 research products and every size have a certificate, and the newest reports are four days old.

Independent testing (Finnrick)

Finnrick, a testing site that tests samples it buys or that the public mails in, lists one test for Nova Peptides: a Tirzepatide sample on July 20, 2026, which passed. The detailed results are behind a paywall. One test is too few to weigh either way.

Business and policies

• Identity (state records): the footer reads “© 2026 Nova Peptide Supply LLC”. No state, street address or phone number appears anywhere on the site, and the terms name no company or governing law. We found no company registered under that name in Texas or Florida. Two companies called Nova Peptides LLC exist, in Baytown, Texas and St. Petersburg, Florida, but both were formed after the shop opened and we found nothing linking either to it. The domain was registered in April 2025, and the shop first appears in July 2025.
• Returns (vendor statement): “all sales are final: we do not offer refunds, returns, or exchanges once an order has been placed”. Orders can be cancelled free within two hours and for a 10% fee before shipping. After shipping, a “reversal at our discretion” costs 10% plus shipping. Damaged or lost orders are replaced. A “Match-or-Refund Guarantee” promises a full refund plus $150 in store credit if an ISO-accredited lab chosen by the buyer gets results that do not match the published COA within 30 days.
• Claims to read carefully (vendor statements): “Every batch we ship is tested by an independent, ISO/IEC 17025-accredited laboratory” (see Accreditation). “Batches that fail any acceptance criterion are rejected and do not enter the catalog”, though underfilled and failed reports are published or were posted and removed. “Nova compounds are ≥99% purity by default”, against published results of 96.99–97.19%. Identity “by mass spectrometry”, which the Ethos and Vanguard reports do not include. “Multiple vials per batch are sampled, never just one”, though early reports and a current Tesamorelin 20 mg lot give one value. “GMP-compliant USA contract manufacturing” and “USA Made” page titles, with no manufacturer named, while another page says Nova uses international and domestic suppliers.
• Star ratings in the page code: 13 product pages carry hidden review data for search engines, claiming 4.8–4.9 stars from 87 to 435 reviews and listing 413 named reviews dated February 2023 to June 2025. No reviews are shown on those pages, the store’s own system reports zero reviews for every product, and most of the dates come before the domain was registered.

Reputation

We checked Trustpilot ourselves on October 31, 2026. Nova’s claimed profile shows 4.9 stars from 100 reviews, with no one-star reviews. Three things are worth knowing. Most reviewers have written only that one review, and none is marked verified. A third of the reviews arrived in October, many through an invitation link the company shares. Several reviews describe human use. The only negative review reports swollen lymph nodes the writer attributes to the GLOW blend. On Reddit, the few mentions we could read are one or two positive buyers and one unsupported “scam” comment, and the company runs its own subreddit. These are anecdotes, not test results.

Red flags at a glance

• Lab-confirmed results under 90% of label, including the IGF-1 LR3 lot on sale now (79%), NAD+ (75%) and Glutathione (88%).
• A MOTS-C report at 87% purity and 59% of label, and a Tesamorelin report at 80% purity, posted and later deleted.
• An ISO 17025 accreditation claim that the labs do not support, and a “failed batches are never released” claim the library contradicts.
• Hidden star-rating data with 413 reviews that are not shown anywhere and mostly predate the shop.
• All sales final.
• An LLC name with no address and no matching state registration we could find.

What it does well

• 157 of 180 certificates confirmed against the labs’ own records, with no edited copies found.
• A public, searchable library covering every product and size, refreshed four days before our check.
• Mass-spectrometry identity and endotoxin on the Freedom reports; heavy metals and microbial screens on the Ethos reports.
• Underfilled lots are visible in the library, and newer lots of NAD+ and Glutathione test on label.
• A written $150 Match-or-Refund guarantee for buyers who test independently.

Who it is for

Nova Peptides suits buyers who want a certificate for every product and will check it themselves: the Freedom codes open on the lab’s own server. Read the measured amount, not just the purity, and match the lot on your vial to its report, because some of the published lots are underfilled, including the current IGF-1 LR3 lot. It is a poor fit for anyone who wants to be able to return an order, or who takes the site’s accreditation and “≥99%” claims at face value.

Plain link, not an affiliate link. See our affiliate disclosure.

Is Nova Peptides legit?

On the evidence we could check, Nova Peptides’ certificates are real: we confirmed 157 of the 180 in its library against the labs’ own records and found no edited copies. The library covers every product and size, and its newest report is dated October 27, 2026. The main concerns: confirmed reports show the current IGF-1 LR3 lot at 79% of label and older NAD+ and Glutathione lots at 75% and 88%; a failing MOTS-C report was posted and later deleted; its ISO 17025, “failed batches are never released” and 99%-purity claims do not hold up; all sales are final; and we found no state registration matching its LLC name. Grade: C (5/10). Products are sold for research use only.

Are Nova Peptides’ COAs real?

Mostly. 157 of 180 (87%) match the labs’ own records at Freedom Diagnostics and Ethos Analytics, with no edited copies found. But a MOTS-C report at 87% purity and 59% of label, and a Tesamorelin report at 80% purity, were posted and later deleted. Real is not the same as independent: Nova Peptides chose and sent the samples.

What do Reddit users say about Nova Peptides?

Very little, and it is mixed. The threads we could read, through search-engine copies, include one positive repeat buyer and one unsupported “known scam” reply in r/rad140 (March 2026), and one positive buyer in r/PeptideDiscussion (December 2025). A review site reports that the company runs its own subreddit, and several “Nova” threads are about different vendors. These are anecdotes, not test results.

Vendors: dispute a finding

If you represent Nova Peptides and think a finding here is wrong, email vendors@aminoreview.com with the report or lot number and your evidence. We recheck it with the issuing lab within 7 days. Any grade change is noted on this page with the date.

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