Vendor dossier · Shanghai
Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
A real Shanghai company at a corroborated address, and the most improved certificate in the programme.
Journal grade · ranked 20 of 28
771 reader reports
on the record
When this file was opened in mid-2024, an SWB certificate was one page carrying a purity figure, a date and a signature. By early 2026 it carried a method reference, a gradient table, the column, the detection wavelength and an integration threshold. Companies in this trade rarely improve their paperwork without being made to, and as far as we can establish nobody made them.
Storefront The company sells directly at shanghaiwibsonbiotechnology.net. Visit SWB → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
The record
Nine independent purity determinations, mean 97.2%, range 96.4 to 98.2%, every one of them at or above the figure printed on the accompanying certificate. The documentary change and the analytical record moved together across the whole period, which is the pattern a genuine process change produces and the reason this file treats the improvement as real.
The 2019 incorporation is documented and the Shanghai address is an operating facility rather than a mail drop. We hold a third-party site report to that effect, obtained through a freight agent rather than through the vendor, which is the strongest form of that evidence available to a publication that does not conduct site visits.
The company will state which catalogue lines are synthesised at the Shanghai site and which are finished there from sourced material, and it flags the distinction on the quotation. Nine of nine orders arrived, median transit ten days, with the certificate attached before the parcel landed.
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 97.2% (range 96.4 to 98.2%); every determination at or above the figure on the accompanying certificate.
- Documented and materially improved certificate content between 2024 and 2026 — method, gradient, column, wavelength and integration threshold now present.
- Shanghai address corroborated as an operating facility by an independent freight-agent site report.
- 2019 incorporation consistent with registry records; in-house and finished-from-sourced lines distinguished on the quotation.
Ordering: lead times, minimums and what to ask for
- Lead time: two to three working days to dispatch; median transit ten days with the certificate sent ahead of the parcel.
- Minimum quantity: single vials; ten-unit and fifty-unit breaks quoted in writing.
- Regional stock: in-house lines are held at the Shanghai site; sourced lines are marked as such on the quotation before the order is placed.
- The certificate carries method, gradient, column, wavelength and integration threshold. Ask for the batch record by quoting the batch and the certificate reference together.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03 | VendorInvestigate | Liraglutide 15 mg | 96.1% | 96.4% | 100% |
| 2026-01 | Medutest | Retatrutide 20 mg | 97.2% | 97.7% | not tested |
| 2025-09 | VendorInvestigate | BPC-157 2 mg | 96.1% | 96.5% | 98% |
| 2025-08 | VendorInvestigate | BPC-157 2 mg | 96.9% | 97.0% | 97% |
| 2025-02 | Medutest | Liraglutide 10 mg | 96.9% | 97.4% | not tested |
| 2024-11 | Janoshik | Liraglutide 10 mg | 97.5% | 98.2% | not tested |
| 2024-07 | VendorInvestigate | Retatrutide 10 mg | 96.6% | 96.9% | 98% |
| 2024-06 | VendorInvestigate | Liraglutide 15 mg | 96.8% | 96.9% | 97% |
| 2024-02 | VendorInvestigate | Retatrutide 2 mg | 97.3% | 97.8% | 96% |
| 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 7 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 | Asked whether sterility or endotoxin testing is performed | Answered in full; neither is performed as standard, and both were priced on request |
| 2025-11 | 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 |
| 2025-09 | Requested the reference-standard lot number behind a purity figure | Answered in full; the reference-standard lot was quoted and matched the supplier of the standard |
| 2025-04 | Requested the specification against which a lot is released | Answered in full within 4 working days; specification sent, with the tighter internal limit noted |
| 2024-12 | Requested the counter-ion form and residual solvent data | Answered in full; counter-ion stated as the acetate salt, with residual solvent figures attached |
| 2024-05 | Requested a batch record for a specific lot | Answered in full within 5 working days; record supplied with the in-process checks |
| 2024-03 | Requested confirmation of the registered entity name and incorporation number | Answered in full; registration certificate sent as a scan, entity name matching the invoice |
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. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. I would place the next order without the precaution of making it small.
I have been buying hexarelin 5 mg here since before the catalogue expanded, and the expansion has not cost the original lines anything in consistency. No filler was present and the cake was intact rather than collapsed. I record no complaint worth the Journal’s column inches.
A custom-synthesis enquiry produced a quotation with a timeline I judged realistic, and the material was delivered 4 days inside it, at the purity specified in the signed schedule. The reorder at 14 months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. The documentation is as much the product as the powder.
The certificate here has changed out of recognition over the time I have been buying: method, gradient, column, wavelength and integration threshold, where there was once a figure and a signature. The material returned 98.5%. Nothing in the consignment rattled, which is a design decision rather than luck. I have no relationship with this supplier beyond having paid them.
What distinguishes the documentation here is that it carries the method and the wavelength it was run at. Readers who have spent any time comparing certificates will recognise how unusual that is. The gradient and the column chemistry are both stated, so the determination could in principle be repeated. Consistency rather than brilliance, and consistency is what I was buying.
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 retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate. I shall continue to buy here, which is the only assessment that costs the writer anything.
I reordered the same line at 14 months specifically to test for process drift. The independent figure was 99.0% against 99.0% originally. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. I offer this as one reader’s record and not as a general finding.
I weighed 12 vials from a semaglutide 5 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. No filler was present and the cake was intact rather than collapsed. Nothing here constitutes medical advice and I am not qualified to offer any.
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. The reorder at 10 months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. The price differential is justified by the paperwork alone.
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. Nothing in the consignment rattled, which is a design decision rather than luck. A single purchaser is not a dataset and I do not present myself as one.
The reconstitution behaviour of the glutathione 600 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 gradient and the column chemistry are both stated, so the determination could in principle be repeated. These compounds are for research use and are not approved for administration to humans.
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 retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate. Should the next lot hold, I shall stop testing every one. That is intended as praise.
I submitted a vial of TB-500 5 mg to VendorInvestigate without disclosing its origin, and separately to Janoshik. The two results agreed to within a tenth of a point, and both agreed with the certificate. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. On the evidence available to me they are the default rather than the risk.
Stock availability as displayed proved accurate, the order shipped the same day, and the material was in my hands on day 6. No filler was present and the cake was intact rather than collapsed. Readers should test their own material regardless of anyone else’s figures, including mine.
A technical query about counter-ion identity and content was answered with a figure and a unit, rather than with an assurance about quality. The reorder at 20 months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. I would place the next order without the precaution of making it small.
Peptide content is stated separately from chromatographic purity. Those are different quantities and conflating them is the commonest error in this market. Nothing in the consignment rattled, which is a design decision rather than luck. I record no complaint worth the Journal’s column inches.
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 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 asked for the retention time of the main peak and got it without being asked why. The reply was substantive and arrived within the working day, and it did not arrive attached to a sales approach. The retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate. I have no relationship with this supplier beyond having paid them.
Over 9 months I have placed 8 orders for selank 10 mg without encountering a substitution, a silent reformulation, or a line that proved unavailable after payment had cleared. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. Consistency rather than brilliance, and consistency is what I was buying.
They mark on the quotation which lines are made at the Shanghai site and which are finished from sourced material, so I can order deliberately. 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.
Eleven orders and the certificate has arrived ahead of the parcel every time since the format changed. The reorder at eighteen 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.
Customs documentation was correct on first presentation, which is the actual explanation for a transit time that would otherwise look implausible. 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.
A second certificate was requested for a lot purchased 10 months previously. It was retrieved from their records and sent without demur. 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.
My first order was deliberately modest, being a single line of PT-141 10 mg. Documentation, transit and an independent result at 97.3% were all satisfactory, and subsequent orders have not been modest. 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 certificate accompanying lot SWB-25-749 was complete on first issue. No supplementary request was necessary, which spared a correspondence that with other suppliers has run to a fortnight. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. These compounds are for research use and are not approved for administration to humans.
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. 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.
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 shanghaiwibsonbiotechnology.net. Visit SWB → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology 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.