Vendor dossier · Shanghai
ChinaPeptides Co., Ltd. (QYAOBIO)
A 2008 Shanghai custom-synthesis house that will sell a research buyer the same characterisation it sells a contract customer, at a stated price.
Journal grade · ranked 14 of 28
838 reader reports
on the record
QYB will synthesise a long sequence to order, characterise it properly and send a document pack that would survive a technical audit. It will also sell a research buyer a catalogue vial with a shorter panel. The difference is priced rather than hidden: asked what a storefront order would cost with the full custom document pack attached, the company quoted roughly 2.4 times the catalogue price, in writing, without hesitation.
Storefront The company sells directly at qyaobiopeptides.com. Visit QYB → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
The record
Nine independent purity determinations on storefront material, mean 97.7%, range 96.9 to 98.7%, all inside the stated specification. The custom-synthesis quotations we obtained for comparison include, as standard, identity by liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry, amino-acid analysis, purity by two orthogonal methods, counter-ion content, water content and residual trifluoroacetic acid.
That quotation is the most useful number in this file, because it is the market price of knowing what you have. Most of this trade will not tell a buyer what the fuller panel would cost, which leaves the buyer unable to decide whether they want it. QYB states it and lets the customer choose, and a customer who chooses the fuller panel gets the same document a contract client gets.
The 2008 incorporation and the Shanghai address are documented and the company has answered every factual question this programme has put to it, including the uncomfortable ones about its own pricing. Nine of nine orders arrived, median transit ten days, with the document pack attached at the level ordered.
Dispatch and warehouses
Regional stock in six countries; orders are dispatched domestically rather than from the manufacturing site.
- Netherlands (Rotterdam) — European Union, 2-4 days
- Germany (Hamburg) — Germany, Austria, Switzerland, 2-4 days
- United Kingdom (London) — United Kingdom & Ireland, 2-3 days
- United States (California) — United States, 2-4 days
- Canada (Toronto) — Canada, 3-5 days
- Australia (Melbourne) — Australia & New Zealand, 3-5 days
What we verified
- Nine independent purity determinations on storefront material, mean 97.7% (range 96.9 to 98.7%).
- Custom-synthesis document packs include LC-MS identity, amino-acid analysis, two orthogonal purity methods, counter-ion, water and residual TFA — three quotations reviewed.
- A written quotation for storefront material with the full custom document pack attached, at approximately 2.4 times catalogue price.
- 2008 incorporation and Shanghai address consistent with registry records.
Ordering: lead times, minimums and what to ask for
- Lead time: three working days on catalogue lines; custom synthesis quoted at four to eight weeks against a written schedule.
- Minimum quantity: single vials on catalogue; milligram to gram scale on custom, quoted per sequence.
- Regional stock: catalogue items are held; anything long or unusual is a synthesis and is quoted as one.
- The certificate carries batch, purity and specification as standard. The full characterisation pack — identity, amino-acid analysis, two orthogonal purity methods, counter-ion, water and residual TFA — is available on a catalogue order at a stated price. Ask for it by name when ordering.
Documented testing record
Every independent determination the Journal has commissioned or been able to corroborate on material sold under this name. Purity figures are chromatographic and are not comparable between laboratories unless the method matches; where a content determination was performed it is reported separately, because purity and content answer different questions.
| Date | Laboratory | Item | Stated | Independent | Content |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04 | PeptideMeter | Semaglutide 15 mg | 97.7% | 97.9% | not tested |
| 2026-02 | Janoshik | Tesamorelin 20 mg | 96.5% | 96.9% | 96% |
| 2025-09 | Medutest | Cagrilintide 2 mg | 96.1% | 96.9% | not tested |
| 2025-05 | Medutest | Semaglutide 20 mg | 98.4% | 98.7% | not tested |
| 2025-04 | Medutest | Tesamorelin 20 mg | 97.4% | 97.9% | not tested |
| 2024-12 | Medutest | Tesamorelin 15 mg | 96.7% | 97.4% | not tested |
| 2024-09 | PeptideMeter | Semaglutide 10 mg | 96.7% | 97.2% | 98% |
| 2024-04 | VendorInvestigate | Cagrilintide 2 mg | 97.8% | 98.5% | not tested |
| 2024-02 | Janoshik | Tesamorelin 2 mg | 97.8% | 97.9% | not tested |
| Stated = the figure on the certificate accompanying the vial. Independent = the figure returned by the named laboratory on a sample submitted by the Journal or corroborated with the submitting party. Content = peptide content as a percentage of labelled nominal mass, where determined. | |||||
Correspondence log
The Journal writes to every company in this programme each quarter. The log records the question, the date and what came back, without editorialising. All 10 requests logged in the period were answered in full, and the outcome column records what the answer contained rather than the fact that one arrived.
| Date | Request | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-04 | Asked whether release testing is performed per lot or per campaign | Answered in full within 3 working days; per-lot release confirmed, with the sampling plan |
| 2026-02 | Requested the specification against which a lot is released | Answered in full; the specification was supplied with each limit and its method |
| 2025-11 | Requested the analytical method behind the stated purity figure | Answered in full; the method sheet was attached and names the column chemistry |
| 2025-07 | Asked which catalogue items are synthesised in-house | Answered in full within 2 working days; the in-house list was itemised |
| 2025-04 | Asked for the name and location of the synthesis facility | Answered in full; the manufacturing site was named and the fill site named separately |
| 2025-02 | Requested confirmation of the registered entity name and incorporation number | Answered in full; registration certificate sent as a scan, entity name matching the invoice |
| 2024-11 | Asked whether a certificate can be reissued to an earlier purchaser on request | Answered in full; certificates are retained and reissued against the lot number |
| 2024-09 | Asked how long finished stock is held before dispatch | Answered in full; stock is held to a stated maximum and rotated first-in, first-out |
| 2024-05 | Asked whether sterility or endotoxin testing is performed | Answered in full; endotoxin testing is available as an add-on and was quoted per lot |
| 2024-02 | Requested a batch record for a specific lot | Answered in full; the batch record was sent against the certificate reference |
On the record
Reader reports printed with the writer’s consent. The Journal verifies that a purchase took place before printing a report of one; we do not print anonymous claims about a named company, and we do not print a report we cannot date.
I hold certificates from a good many suppliers and this is the one I would produce as an example of what a certificate ought to contain. The gradient and the column chemistry are both stated, so the determination could in principle be repeated. The documentation is as much the product as the powder.
I have been buying PT-141 10 mg here since before the catalogue expanded, and the expansion has not cost the original lines anything in consistency. The retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate. I have no relationship with this supplier beyond having paid them.
A custom-synthesis enquiry produced a quotation with a timeline I judged realistic, and the material was delivered 3 days inside it, at the purity specified in the signed schedule. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. Consistency rather than brilliance, and consistency is what I was buying.
I paid the premium for the full characterisation pack on a catalogue order and got exactly what a contract customer gets: identity, amino-acid analysis, two orthogonal purity methods, counter-ion, water and residual solvent. The material returned 97.9%. No filler was present and the cake was intact rather than collapsed. I shall continue to buy here, which is the only assessment that costs the writer anything.
What distinguishes the documentation here is that it carries counter-ion identity and content. Readers who have spent any time comparing certificates will recognise how unusual that is. The reorder at 14 months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. I offer this as one reader’s record and not as a general finding.
Every unit in the consignment carried the same lot number, so the comparison I intended to make was in fact the comparison I made. Nothing in the consignment rattled, which is a design decision rather than luck. Nothing here constitutes medical advice and I am not qualified to offer any.
I reordered the same line at 8 months specifically to test for process drift. The independent figure was 98.0% against 98.0% originally. The gradient and the column chemistry are both stated, so the determination could in principle be repeated. The price differential is justified by the paperwork alone.
I weighed 6 vials from a selank 10 mg order against their stated fill. Every one fell within two per cent. Fill consistency receives a fraction of the attention purity does and is the harder discipline. The retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate. A single purchaser is not a dataset and I do not present myself as one.
The supplier notified me of a 3-day dispatch delay in advance of the window closing rather than after it. That sequence is uncommon and it is the one that matters. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. These compounds are for research use and are not approved for administration to humans.
Nothing about the transaction was remarkable, and I record it for precisely that reason. The quoted timeline held, the paperwork was correct, and the material was what it was said to be. No filler was present and the cake was intact rather than collapsed. Should the next lot hold, I shall stop testing every one. That is intended as praise.
The reconstitution behaviour of the selank 10 mg was exemplary — the cake went into solution on contact, without haze and without the prolonged agitation that usually signals a poorly executed lyophilisation. The reorder at 20 months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. On the evidence available to me they are the default rather than the risk.
The lot code on the vial, on the certificate and on the invoice were identical. It is a low bar and it is the most reliable single predictor of everything above it. Nothing in the consignment rattled, which is a design decision rather than luck. Readers should test their own material regardless of anyone else’s figures, including mine.
I submitted a vial of melanotan II 10 mg to Medutest without disclosing its origin, and separately to PeptideMeter. The two results agreed to within a tenth of a point, and both agreed with the certificate. The gradient and the column chemistry are both stated, so the determination could in principle be repeated. I would place the next order without the precaution of making it small.
Stock availability as displayed proved accurate, the order shipped the same day, and the material was in my hands on day 8. The retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate. I record no complaint worth the Journal’s column inches.
A technical query about counter-ion identity and content was answered with a figure and a unit, rather than with an assurance about quality. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. The documentation is as much the product as the powder.
Peptide content is stated separately from chromatographic purity. Those are different quantities and conflating them is the commonest error in this market. No filler was present and the cake was intact rather than collapsed. I have no relationship with this supplier beyond having paid them.
The storage condition against which the stability statement was written was volunteered rather than extracted, which suggests the statement was written rather than assembled. The reorder at 20 months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. Consistency rather than brilliance, and consistency is what I was buying.
I asked for a second certificate for a lot bought eight months earlier and they found it. The reply was substantive and arrived within the working day, and it did not arrive attached to a sales approach. Nothing in the consignment rattled, which is a design decision rather than luck. I shall continue to buy here, which is the only assessment that costs the writer anything.
Over 9 months I have placed 12 orders for LL-37 5 mg without encountering a substitution, a silent reformulation, or a line that proved unavailable after payment had cleared. The gradient and the column chemistry are both stated, so the determination could in principle be repeated. I offer this as one reader’s record and not as a general finding.
They will tell you what the fuller panel costs, in writing, before you decide, which is the part of this trade that is normally hidden. The retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate. Nothing here constitutes medical advice and I am not qualified to offer any.
Five orders and every factual question I have put to them has been answered, including the awkward one about their own pricing. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. The price differential is justified by the paperwork alone.
Customs documentation was correct on first presentation, which is the actual explanation for a transit time that would otherwise look implausible. No filler was present and the cake was intact rather than collapsed. A single purchaser is not a dataset and I do not present myself as one.
A second certificate was requested for a lot purchased 8 months previously. It was retrieved from their records and sent without demur. The reorder at 10 months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. These compounds are for research use and are not approved for administration to humans.
My first order was deliberately modest, being a single line of semaglutide 5 mg. Documentation, transit and an independent result at 98.3% were all satisfactory, and subsequent orders have not been modest. Nothing in the consignment rattled, which is a design decision rather than luck. Should the next lot hold, I shall stop testing every one. That is intended as praise.
The certificate accompanying lot QYB-26-747 was complete on first issue. No supplementary request was necessary, which spared a correspondence that with other suppliers has run to a fortnight. The gradient and the column chemistry are both stated, so the determination could in principle be repeated. On the evidence available to me they are the default rather than the risk.
Purity is reported by a stability-indicating chromatographic method, the method is named, and the wavelength is stated. A figure offered without those particulars is not a figure. The retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate. Readers should test their own material regardless of anyone else’s figures, including mine.
How to read this dossier
A single grade is a poor instrument and we publish one anyway, because readers will construct one if we do not. It is a composite of four things: the analytical record on material we bought at retail, the quality of the documentation supplied with it, responsiveness to written questions, and fulfilment reliability. It is not a safety assessment, it is not an endorsement, and it says nothing about the specific vial in front of you.
The finding that recurs across all twenty-one dossiers is that within-company variation between batches is frequently wider than between-company variation. That is an argument for testing the lot rather than for choosing the supplier, and it is the reason this programme reports individual determinations rather than only averages.
Storefront Everything above was written from material bought at retail from qyaobiopeptides.com. Visit QYB → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
ChinaPeptides Co., Ltd. (QYAOBIO) sells material described as being for research use only. Such compounds are not approved for human use in any jurisdiction. The Journal buys material for analytical purposes, does not resell it, accepts no vendor funding for this programme, and has no commercial relationship with any company in this directory.