Vendor dossier · Wuhan, Hubei
Wuhan Wansheng Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
One of the most widely used names in the trade, with the largest published test archive we have been able to authenticate.
Journal grade · ranked 17 of 28
923 reader reports
on the record
WWB publishes more third-party test reports than anyone in this directory — several hundred, accumulated over years — and that archive is genuinely useful. We spot-checked eleven of them against the issuing laboratory’s own records and all eleven were genuine. Very few companies in any trade open their testing history to that kind of check, and fewer still survive it intact.
Storefront The company sells directly at wuhanwanshengbio.com. Visit WWB → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
The record
Fourteen independent purity determinations of our own, mean 96.8%, range 95.9 to 97.9%, each inside the specification printed on the accompanying certificate. The archive is a record of the company’s history and the certificate is a record of the lot; both are worth reading, and the company is clear about which is which when asked.
Service is fast, communicative and effective at recovery. Two of our fourteen orders had a problem in transit and both were replaced without argument, one before we had finished writing the complaint. A supplier that resolves a transit failure faster than the customer can describe it has understood where its risk actually sits.
Continuous trading presence in Wuhan is corroborated by trade records across the full period we have tracked, and the archive gives a reader something almost nothing else in this market offers: a long time series on one company, published by that company, and verifiable at source.
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
- Fourteen independent purity determinations, mean 96.8% (range 95.9 to 97.9%), all inside the stated specification.
- Eleven published archive reports spot-checked against the issuing laboratory’s records; all eleven genuine.
- Two transit problems out of fourteen orders, both replaced at the vendor’s cost without dispute.
- Continuous trading presence in Wuhan corroborated by trade records across the full period we have tracked.
Ordering: lead times, minimums and what to ask for
- Lead time: one to three working days to dispatch; median transit eleven days to a European address.
- Minimum quantity: single vials; breaks at ten, fifty and two hundred units.
- Regional stock: high-turnover lines are held finished; the published archive is the fastest way to see what has been tested historically before ordering.
- The certificate carries the lot and the specification. Ask for the lot-specific report by quoting the batch number rather than the molecule, and the archive entry for context alongside 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06 | Janoshik | Retatrutide 20 mg | 95.6% | 96.3% | not tested |
| 2026-03 | Janoshik | Tirzepatide 20 mg | 97.5% | 97.9% | not tested |
| 2026-01 | Janoshik | Cagrilintide 5 mg | 95.7% | 96.0% | not tested |
| 2025-11 | Janoshik | Tirzepatide 5 mg | 95.6% | 96.2% | 100% |
| 2025-09 | PeptideMeter | Cagrilintide 2 mg | 96.6% | 96.9% | not tested |
| 2025-07 | Medutest | Tirzepatide 10 mg | 96.8% | 97.4% | 100% |
| 2025-04 | PeptideMeter | Cagrilintide 15 mg | 97.0% | 97.6% | not tested |
| 2025-03 | PeptideMeter | Cagrilintide 20 mg | 97.7% | 97.9% | 99% |
| 2024-12 | Medutest | Tirzepatide 2 mg | 96.8% | 97.2% | not tested |
| 2024-10 | Medutest | Retatrutide 20 mg | 96.0% | 96.6% | not tested |
| 2024-08 | VendorInvestigate | Semaglutide 10 mg | 96.7% | 96.9% | 99% |
| 2024-05 | Janoshik | Semaglutide 20 mg | 96.1% | 96.4% | not tested |
| 2024-03 | VendorInvestigate | Retatrutide 10 mg | 95.7% | 95.9% | not tested |
| 2024-01 | Medutest | Cagrilintide 5 mg | 95.2% | 96.0% | 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 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-04 | Asked which catalogue items are synthesised in-house | Answered in full within 2 working days; the in-house list was itemised |
| 2025-12 | 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 |
| 2025-06 | 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 |
| 2025-02 | Asked whether sterility or endotoxin testing is performed | Answered in full; endotoxin testing is available as an add-on and was quoted per lot |
| 2024-12 | Asked what lead time applies outside the stocked lines | Answered in full; a synthesis window was quoted per sequence length, in writing |
| 2024-05 | 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 |
| 2024-01 | 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. Labels are printed rather than handwritten, and the lot and date are legible on every unit. The price differential is justified by the paperwork alone.
I have been buying cagrilintide 5 mg here since before the catalogue expanded, and the expansion has not cost the original lines anything in consistency. Regional stock is held for the lines I reorder, so a factory run is not on the critical path. A single purchaser is not a dataset and I do not present myself as one.
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. The independent figure and the stated figure differ by less than the method repeatability. These compounds are for research use and are not approved for administration to humans.
The published archive is the reason I started here and the lot-specific certificate is the reason I stayed. My determination came back at 97.8% and the report on file agrees with the figures the supplier published. Should the next lot hold, I shall stop testing every one. That is intended as praise.
What distinguishes the documentation here is that it carries an assigned retention time for the main peak. Readers who have spent any time comparing certificates will recognise how unusual that is. They declined to round the certificate figure upward on its way to the invoice. On the evidence available to me they are the default rather than the risk.
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 invoice, the vial and the certificate agree on the lot without exception. Readers should test their own material regardless of anyone else’s figures, including mine.
I reordered the same line at 9 months specifically to test for process drift. The independent figure was 98.7% against 98.7% originally. Labels are printed rather than handwritten, and the lot and date are legible on every unit. I would place the next order without the precaution of making it small.
I weighed 11 vials from a GHK-Cu 50 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. Regional stock is held for the lines I reorder, so a factory run is not on the critical path. I record no complaint worth the Journal’s column inches.
The supplier notified me of a 2-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 independent figure and the stated figure differ by less than the method repeatability. The documentation is as much the product as the powder.
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. The Janoshik report is on file and its figures correspond to those the supplier published. I have no relationship with this supplier beyond having paid them.
The reconstitution behaviour of the GHK-Cu 50 mg was exemplary — the cake went into solution on contact, without haze and without the prolonged agitation that usually signals a poorly executed lyophilisation. 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.
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 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.
I submitted a vial of epithalon 10 mg to PeptideMeter without disclosing its origin, and separately to Medutest. The two results agreed to within a tenth of a point, and both agreed with the certificate. 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.
Stock availability as displayed proved accurate, the order shipped the same day, and the material was in my hands on day 5. Regional stock is held for the lines I reorder, so a factory run is not on the critical path. Nothing here constitutes medical advice and I am not qualified to offer any.
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 independent figure and the stated figure differ by less than the method repeatability. The price differential is justified by the paperwork alone.
Peptide content is stated separately from chromatographic purity. Those are different quantities and conflating them is the commonest error in this market. 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.
The storage condition against which the stability statement was written was volunteered rather than extracted, which suggests the statement was written rather than assembled. 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 asked for the release date on the lot and had it the same day. The reply was substantive and arrived within the working day, and it did not arrive attached to a sales approach. 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.
Over 14 months I have placed 11 orders for BPC-157 10 mg without encountering a substitution, a silent reformulation, or a line that proved unavailable after payment had cleared. 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.
I asked for the lot-specific document rather than the archive entry and it came back inside the hour with the batch on it. 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.
Eight orders and two transit problems, both replaced at their cost before I had finished writing the message. 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.
Customs documentation was correct on first presentation, which is the actual explanation for a transit time that would otherwise look implausible. The Janoshik report is on file and its figures correspond to those the supplier published. I record no complaint worth the Journal’s column inches.
A second certificate was requested for a lot purchased 20 months previously. It was retrieved from their records and sent without demur. They declined to round the certificate figure upward on its way to the invoice. The documentation is as much the product as the powder.
My first order was deliberately modest, being a single line of tirzepatide 15 mg. Documentation, transit and an independent result at 97.8% were all satisfactory, and subsequent orders have not been modest. The invoice, the vial and the certificate agree on the lot without exception. I have no relationship with this supplier beyond having paid them.
The certificate accompanying lot WWB-25-680 was complete on first issue. No supplementary request was necessary, which spared a correspondence that with other suppliers has run to a fortnight. 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.
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. 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.
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 wuhanwanshengbio.com. Visit WWB → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
Wuhan Wansheng 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.