🚩 On the watch list, its certificate can't be verified in its own name.
Stratfordpeptides publishes nothing on-site; a certificate is only promised 'on request', i.e. a document they'll email after you've paid, from a lab they won't name. By the time you could even look at it, you've already bought. It's an assurance designed never to be tested before purchase.
The certificate, and what's wrong with it
🟦 Analiza Białek, real lab, not Janoshik
What this certificate actually is: A certificate displayed by the seller, read it against the teardown above; it is not a verifiable independent test in the seller's own name., client field: Stratford Peptides
⏳ This certificate is dated Apr 2024, about 2 years old. A certificate from Apr 2024 cannot describe anything this seller would ship you today, that batch is long gone. Showing a about 2 years old certificate for a product on sale now is meaningless; the stock you'd actually receive is untested.
What doesn't add up on its site
Quoted straight from stratfordpeptides.com, and why it falls apart.
Its 'business' contact is a free gmail address. A real laboratory has email at its own domain; a Gmail account is a person, not a company.
Pricing vs the market, benchmarked on BPC-157
BPC-157
£3/mg (≈ £29.98 for a 10 mg vial)
Versus market median (£3.0/mg)
1×, competitive
In line with the wider UK market. The Peptide Watch benchmarks every vendor on the same compound, BPC-157, the most common research peptide, as £ per milligram, so prices are directly comparable across all providers.
The audit checklist
Check
Result
Verifiable certificate in its own name
No
Independent lab named
None named / unverifiable
Tests its own stock
No evidence
Pricing vs market
1× median (competitive)
Claims that don't add up
1 found
The bottom line. Stratfordpeptides sits on the watch list because it does not publish a certificate that can be verified in its own name. Everything above is observable on its own website and the public record. See the vendors whose certificates are actually their own →
⚠️ Is anything on this page wrong or out of date? Submit a correction request and we'll look into it, vendors welcome too.