Studz Peptides Review: Prices, COA History and Laboratory Checks
An independent review of Studz Peptides vial kits, capsules, sprays, historical COAs, exact product coverage and laboratory verification limits.
We reviewed Studz Peptides, its public prices and the current and historical documents in its certificate library. Its strengths are a broad public catalog and a substantial own-client laboratory trail. The main limitation is that report volume and exact product coverage are different measures.
Reviewed November 4, 2026. PeptideBenchmark has no affiliate, coupon, sponsorship or paid-placement relationship with Studz Peptides. This review covers research-use-only commercial transparency and documentary evidence. It does not evaluate products for human or veterinary use.
Prices: compare the complete purchase option
The catalog includes individual vials, five-vial half-kits, ten-vial kits, capsules, ready sprays, unavailable products and research supplies. Our vial Pricing board and Stack Builder use the full listed pack price divided by the full labeled pack mass. A ten-vial kit is not priced as a single vial, and a five-vial half-kit is not a two-vial pack.
Unconditional product sale prices are retained. No affiliate discount or unverified promotional combination is added. Select the matching purchase option on the merchant page: one page can contain different pack sizes or strengths.
Ready sprays and capsule bottles appear in their separate comparison lanes. Capsule totals use dose per capsule multiplied by the bottle count; sprays use the labeled peptide mass in the bottle. Neither is mixed with lyophilized-vial prices. Raw powders, cosmetics, solvents and non-comparable liquid preparations remain outside these comparisons.
Some options need further identity clarification. The Adamax 984 Da vial’s linked report names N-Acetyl Semax, while the separately sold 1032 Da product has an Adamax report; they remain distinct. The 984 Da spray is held rather than assigned the identity of either vial. The coded SP-CAG/SP-S1 blend and the three-active Burn Blend retain explicit comparison deferrals. A three-active formulation must not be grouped with a two-active blend.
What the certificate history establishes
We found 197 distinct published document URLs across the current catalog and complete certificate histories. 195 were readable, representing 177 distinct PDF bodies. Two older links were unavailable both directly and through the merchant’s document preview; their results are unknown. Duplicate URLs do not create extra tested reports.
The documents name Freedom Diagnostics, Vanguard Laboratory, ILS Laboratories, Kovera Labs, SteriGenix and Chromate. One published report names SteriGenix as the client rather than Studz; it is retained as published evidence but receives no own-vendor scoring or product-coverage credit. The remaining readable own-client population contains 176 distinct documents.
Independent laboratory checks are separate from document availability. We checked exact report credentials, published laboratory records and laboratory document copies where available. Some file containers differ while complete document text and rendered pages match; those copies can still corroborate the same document. Other differing revisions remain distinct. The live profile shows the accepted verified-document and report counts.
Some current ILS records differ from the merchant-published PDFs in reported values or available panels. We preserve the printed results and the current laboratory results separately. An identity lookup does not make every value in an older PDF currently laboratory-verified. These differences do not establish their cause or a health or safety conclusion.
Exact compound, strength and form matter
A report attached to a product page is a starting point, not proof of coverage. The history includes attachments naming a different compound or nominal strength from the linked product. A historical TB500 attachment identifies retatrutide; another Semax attachment identifies Selank. Those relationships do not establish testing of the named listing.
Exact nominal component recipes and sample forms establish coverage for 100 purchase options. We use printed component declarations and, where necessary, the submitted-sample label photographed inside the report. Measured component ratios are retained separately and do not create a nominal recipe.
Formulation matters too. The Burn Blend storefront label lists SLU/BAM/5AMQ at 10/20/40 mg per capsule, while its linked Vanguard document declares a different nominal component recipe. That document does not establish exact coverage of the currently labeled capsule formulation. Likewise, a lyophilized sample report does not establish testing of a finished ready spray.
Purity and measured content are different quantities. We retain component results, individual sample results and laboratory-reported summaries without inventing an average or summing a blend where no total is reported. A censored result such as a greater-than threshold remains a bound, rather than an exact purity value. Historical reports do not establish the lot a future order will receive. Conflicting printed testing dates and malformed result units remain unresolved rather than being silently corrected.
Published endotoxin, heavy-metal and microbial results cover subsets of the documents. PCR or accelerator growth screening is not a compendial sterility test. A certificate describes the submitted sample, not every vial in inventory.
Location and fulfillment
The official contact page publishes a mailing address in Queen Creek, Arizona. This is a vendor statement, not independently verified headquarters, manufacturing or fulfillment. The shipping policy states processing in one to two business days, rates calculated at checkout, domestic delivery and selected international destinations. Its U.S. delivery-credit guarantee has exclusions and is a dated commercial policy, not a laboratory-quality guarantee.
See the current Studz profile, public COA records and scoring methodology for the accepted evidence and its limits. Broader exact-strength and finished-form documentation, clear product-to-report links, and consistency between published copies and current laboratory records would improve what researchers can verify.
Common questions
Does every published COA cover the linked product?
No. We check the printed compound, nominal strength and sample form. An authentic report for another compound, size or formulation does not establish coverage for the linked product.
Does a vial report cover a ready nasal spray?
No. A report describing a lyophilized sample does not establish testing of a finished spray. Sprays and capsules have their own price comparisons, separate from reconstitution vials.
Is PeptideBenchmark a Studz affiliate?
No affiliate, coupon, sponsorship or paid-placement relationship was supplied or established for this review.