Peptide Database
36 peptides ranked by an independent trust score derived from clinical-trial volume, FDA status, adverse-event signals, and clinical adoption. No editorial discretion in the score itself — only the data that goes in.
Last updated 2026-05-07 · Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov · FDA FAERS · PubMed
How to read this list
Trust scores aggregate four signals. Research evidence weights the strongest — Phase 3 trials and peer-reviewed publications outweigh in-vitro data. Regulatory status is the second weight: an FDA-approved indication anchors a peptide above the speculative tier. Safety signals (FDA FAERS adverse events normalized for prescription volume) and clinical adoption fill in the rest.
Two peptides with the same score can have very different shapes. Semaglutide scores high on FDA approval and clinical trials. BPC-157 scores on emerging research volume but has no FDA pathway and no human Phase 3 data. The score reflects evidence, not legality or accessibility.
Filter by evidence tier to surface what matters to you. Marketers tend to lump everything together; the tier filter separates what the FDA has reviewed from what is still preclinical or unstudied. If a peptide you've heard about isn't on this list, it's likely below the threshold of any published trial — that is itself a signal.
No peptides match the selected filter.
Frequently asked questions
How is the trust score calculated?
What does each evidence tier mean?
Why are some peptides without FDA approval still listed?
How often is the data updated?
Is CheckPeptides medical advice?
Methodology
Peptide records are constructed from public sources: ClinicalTrials.gov for trial counts and phases, FDA Drugs@FDA for approval status, FAERS for adverse-event reporting, and PubMed for peer-reviewed publication counts.
Vendor and clinic listings are independent. CheckPeptides earns commission on some vendor links — these never affect trust scores. See the affiliate disclosure for details.