When more than one lab tests the same batch, we line up their results side by side. When they match, it is the strongest signal you can get. When they do not, that is information too. Here is what these labs found — you decide.
2 independent labs tested this batch of CJC-1295 (no-DAC) from Pure Health Peptides.
Not enough data to compare
These labs did not report enough overlapping numbers to line up cleanly.
On the actual amount per vial, the labs were far apart (4.9 to 9.7 mg).
Scores land close·Poor · 5.3
The two badges above are our blended RV-score view: whether the scores agree, and the overall quality tier. The plain read at the top leads with the labs actual purity numbers, and the full per-lab table is below.
CJC-1295 (no-DAC) from Pure Health Peptides vendor batch label "TUY-101025" · cross-tested by 2 independent labs
The blended RV scores land within 0.5 to 1.5 points of each other. The RV score mixes purity with other factors and can read as agreement even when raw purity does not — so weigh the raw purity range shown above.
Grouped by the vendor's batch label. We don't independently verify lot identity — if multiple physical lots were sold under this label, they'd be lumped together here. Use the agreement signal with appropriate caution.
🧞 Identity caveat — Distinct molecule from CJC-1295 DAC (DAC adds Drug Affinity Complex → days-long half-life). Bare 'CJC-1295' resolves here per peptide-research market convention: ≥99% of bare-term COAs are no-DAC (Mod GRF 1-29). Vendors advertising DAC form state so explicitly. If a record's DAC/no-DAC matters for downstream analysis, verify against the COA notes — do not blindly trust this resolution.
⇊ Canonical merge — Records using different spellings/names for the same compound were grouped under the canonical CJC-1295 (no-DAC). Source names: CJC 1295, CJC 1295 No DAC. Verified by the synonym resolver.
Reporting-basis mismatch or different denominator — investigate. One lab's measurement is more than 1.8× another's. Counterion plus residual water tops out around 1.3–1.5× even in bad cases, so a spread this large usually means the two labs aren't measuring the same thing — different denominator (per-mL vs per-vial), a dilution-factor mismatch, a decimal slip, or a sample-prep difference. The compound itself may be fine; the disagreement is about how it was quantified. Resolves once method/basis is surfaced per lab.
Disagreement, but method data is sparse. Disagreement detected but method data is missing on too many records to attribute the cause. Once more records in this group carry resolved method info, this verdict will sharpen.
Labs
2
Tests
4
RV Score Mean
5.34
RV Score Spread
1.44
Content Mean
7.3 mg
⇄ Basis mismatch
Content Range
4.9–9.7 mg
CV 32.8%
Per-Lab Breakdown
All rows (Purity & Content vary, everything else constant):CI 10.0
Why this matters: A single COA is one lab's answer from one method on one sample. Multiple labs reveal the pattern. When labs converge on the same answer, that's strong cross-validation. When they diverge — especially on content while agreeing on purity — the difference is often method-driven (different quantitation basis) but sometimes signals real product variation. ResearchVerify is the only platform that surfaces both cases automatically across thousands of cross-tests.