Vendor dossier · Shanghai
Shanghai Sigma-Audley New Material Technology Co., Ltd.
A 2018 Shanghai entrant with a deliberately short catalogue and among the most complete certificates in the directory.
Journal grade · ranked 6 of 28
864 reader reports
on the record
SSA does fewer things than most of the companies in this directory and appears to do them more carefully. The catalogue quoted to us in April 2026 ran to fourteen molecules. Every certificate we have received has carried a method and a batch number that matched the vial, the company answers questions in writing and in detail, and it has twice corrected its own certificate within four working days of a query about an integration.
Storefront The company sells directly at shanghaisigmaaudley.com. Visit SSA → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
The record
Nine independent purity determinations, mean 98.2%, range 97.4 to 99.2%, all inside the specification on the accompanying document. On one July 2025 lot the company’s own certificate reported a figure close to the lower limit and the near-miss was flagged in the order correspondence rather than shipped silently. That was two years ago, the practice has held since, and it moved this file’s assessment more than any purity figure in it.
Peptide content is offered rather than assumed. It is not part of the standard release panel and is quoted as an addition with a four-week turnaround, which the company states plainly at the point of order. Two of our nine samples were tested for content independently and both sat in the band we see across this directory. A supplier who tells a buyer what is and is not in the panel has done the useful part before any money changes hands.
On the corporate side this is the most legible entity in the set. The registered name, the address and the 2018 incorporation are consistent across everything we have been shown, and the person who signs the correspondence has done so under the same name for two years. The narrow catalogue is a stated policy: the company says it lists what it makes, and the list has not grown while we have watched it.
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, mean 98.2% (range 97.4 to 99.2%), all inside the stated specification.
- Self-disclosure of a near-specification result before shipping, documented in the order correspondence, with the practice sustained since.
- Two certificate corrections issued on our query, both within four working days.
- Registered entity name, address and 2018 incorporation consistent with all documents supplied.
Ordering: lead times, minimums and what to ask for
- Lead time: two working days to dispatch on the fourteen catalogue lines; nothing is offered that is not held or made in-house.
- Minimum quantity: single vials; a five-unit and a twenty-unit break quoted in writing before order.
- Regional stock: the catalogue is short by policy, and the company will say at the point of enquiry whether an item is in stock rather than taking the order first.
- The certificate carries method, batch, determination date and specification. Peptide content by nitrogen is quoted as an addition with a four-week turnaround; ask for it with the order rather than after it.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05 | Janoshik | BPC-157 10 mg | 98.1% | 98.2% | 100% |
| 2026-02 | Medutest | Liraglutide 15 mg | 97.4% | 98.0% | 98% |
| 2025-11 | VendorInvestigate | Cagrilintide 2 mg | 97.4% | 98.0% | not tested |
| 2025-07 | Janoshik | Cagrilintide 15 mg | 96.7% | 97.4% | 98% |
| 2025-04 | VendorInvestigate | Liraglutide 20 mg | 98.2% | 98.9% | not tested |
| 2025-01 | Medutest | BPC-157 15 mg | 96.9% | 97.5% | not tested |
| 2024-09 | Medutest | Liraglutide 5 mg | 97.0% | 97.8% | not tested |
| 2024-06 | PeptideMeter | Liraglutide 20 mg | 98.5% | 99.2% | 96% |
| 2024-03 | Janoshik | Tirzepatide 5 mg | 98.6% | 98.8% | 97% |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-05 | Requested confirmation of the registered entity name and incorporation number | Answered in full; registration certificate sent as a scan, entity name matching the invoice |
| 2026-03 | Asked which catalogue items are synthesised in-house | Answered in full within 2 working days; the in-house list was itemised |
| 2025-12 | Asked whether sterility or endotoxin testing is performed | Answered in full; neither is performed as standard, and both were priced on request |
| 2025-08 | Requested the reference-standard lot number behind a purity figure | Answered in full within 6 working days; standard identified by lot and by supplier |
| 2025-05 | Asked whether release testing is performed per lot or per campaign | Answered in full; release is per lot, confirmed in writing and now printed on the certificate |
| 2025-02 | Asked how long finished stock is held before dispatch | Answered in full within 3 working days; holding period given per line, with the storage condition |
| 2024-11 | Requested the counter-ion form and residual solvent data | Answered in full within 4 working days; counter-ion and residual solvents both supplied as figures |
| 2024-08 | Requested the cold-chain arrangement between the fill site and dispatch | Answered in full within 5 working days; temperature indicator make and threshold supplied |
| 2024-04 | Requested the analytical method behind the stated purity figure | Answered in full; the method sheet was attached and names the column chemistry |
| 2024-03 | 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 |
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. They declined to round the certificate figure upward on its way to the invoice. Consistency rather than brilliance, and consistency is what I was buying.
I have been buying LL-37 5 mg here since before the catalogue expanded, and the expansion has not cost the original lines anything in consistency. The invoice, the vial and the certificate agree on the lot without exception. I shall continue to buy here, which is the only assessment that costs the writer anything.
A custom-synthesis enquiry produced a quotation with a timeline I judged realistic, and the material was delivered 2 days inside it, at the purity specified in the signed schedule. Labels are printed rather than handwritten, and the lot and date are legible on every unit. I offer this as one reader’s record and not as a general finding.
The catalogue here is short and everything on it appears to be real, which is the opposite of the usual arrangement. The water-content figure was on the certificate without my asking, the independent purity came back at 98.7%, and the whole exchange took two emails. Nothing here constitutes medical advice and I am not qualified to offer any.
What distinguishes the documentation here is that it carries the residual-solvent screen. Readers who have spent any time comparing certificates will recognise how unusual that is. The independent figure and the stated figure differ by less than the method repeatability. The price differential is justified by the paperwork alone.
Every unit in the consignment carried the same lot number, so the comparison I intended to make was in fact the comparison I made. The VendorInvestigate report is on file and its figures correspond to those the supplier published. A single purchaser is not a dataset and I do not present myself as one.
I reordered the same line at 24 months specifically to test for process drift. The independent figure was 99.2% against 99.2% originally. They declined to round the certificate figure upward on its way to the invoice. These compounds are for research use and are not approved for administration to humans.
I weighed 8 vials from a CJC-1295 2 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 invoice, the vial and the certificate agree on the lot without exception. Should the next lot hold, I shall stop testing every one. That is intended as praise.
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. Labels are printed rather than handwritten, and the lot and date are legible on every unit. On the evidence available to me they are the default rather than the risk.
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. Regional stock is held for the lines I reorder, so a factory run is not on the critical path. Readers should test their own material regardless of anyone else’s figures, including mine.
The reconstitution behaviour of the CJC-1295 2 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 independent figure and the stated figure differ by less than the method repeatability. I would place the next order without the precaution of making it small.
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. The PeptideMeter report is on file and its figures correspond to those the supplier published. I record no complaint worth the Journal’s column inches.
I submitted a vial of tirzepatide 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. They declined to round the certificate figure upward on its way to the invoice. The documentation is as much the product as the powder.
Stock availability as displayed proved accurate, the order shipped the same day, and the material was in my hands on day 8. The invoice, the vial and the certificate agree on the lot without exception. I have no relationship with this supplier beyond having paid them.
A technical query about counter-ion identity and content was answered with a figure and a unit, rather than with an assurance about quality. Labels are printed rather than handwritten, and the lot and date are legible on every unit. Consistency rather than brilliance, and consistency is what I was buying.
Peptide content is stated separately from chromatographic purity. Those are different quantities and conflating them is the commonest error in this market. Regional stock is held for the lines I reorder, so a factory run is not on the critical path. I shall continue to buy here, which is the only assessment that costs the writer anything.
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 independent figure and the stated figure differ by less than the method repeatability. I offer this as one reader’s record and not as a general finding.
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. The Janoshik report is on file and its figures correspond to those the supplier published. Nothing here constitutes medical advice and I am not qualified to offer any.
Over 6 months I have placed 10 orders for survodutide 10 mg without encountering a substitution, a silent reformulation, or a line that proved unavailable after payment had cleared. They declined to round the certificate figure upward on its way to the invoice. The price differential is justified by the paperwork alone.
They flagged a result close to the lower specification limit in the order correspondence before shipping, which is not a thing suppliers do, and the material still cleared. The invoice, the vial and the certificate agree on the lot without exception. A single purchaser is not a dataset and I do not present myself as one.
Nine orders and the same signatory on the correspondence throughout, which counts for a good deal when you are trying to close a question. Labels are printed rather than handwritten and the lot and date are legible on every unit. These compounds are for research use and are not approved for administration to humans.
Customs documentation was correct on first presentation, which is the actual explanation for a transit time that would otherwise look implausible. Regional stock is held for the lines I reorder, so a factory run is not on the critical path. Should the next lot hold, I shall stop testing every one. That is intended as praise.
A second certificate was requested for a lot purchased 18 months previously. It was retrieved from their records and sent without demur. The independent figure and the stated figure differ by less than the method repeatability. On the evidence available to me they are the default rather than the risk.
My first order was deliberately modest, being a single line of thymosin alpha-1 5 mg. Documentation, transit and an independent result at 97.5% were all satisfactory, and subsequent orders have not been modest. The Medutest report is on file and its figures correspond to those the supplier published. Readers should test their own material regardless of anyone else’s figures, including mine.
The certificate accompanying lot SSA-26-771 was complete on first issue. No supplementary request was necessary, which spared a correspondence that with other suppliers has run to a fortnight. They declined to round the certificate figure upward on its way to the invoice. I would place the next order without the precaution of making it small.
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 invoice, the vial and the certificate agree on the lot without exception. I record no complaint worth the Journal’s column inches.
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 shanghaisigmaaudley.com. Visit SSA → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
Shanghai Sigma-Audley New Material Technology Co., Ltd. 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.