MYPEPTIDEQUEST
How We Rate Peptide Treatments
A transparent, evidence-first framework designed to separate editorial judgment from commercial relationships.
Evidence hierarchy
We prioritize high-quality clinical evidence and clearly describe limitations, study context, and uncertainty.
Weighted methodology
Clinical Evidence 30%; Regulatory Status 20%; Effectiveness Evidence 20%; Safety / Known Risks 15%; Access & Convenience 10%; Cost Transparency 5%. Scores are rounded to one decimal.
Each category uses the same bands: 9–10 exceptional, 7–8.9 strong, 5–6.9 moderate, 3–4.9 limited, 1–2.9 very limited. Clinical Evidence: 9–10 multiple large high-quality randomized trials or equivalent; 7–8.9 several controlled human studies; 5–6.9 limited or smaller controlled studies; 3–4.9 mainly observational or very small human evidence; 1–2.9 preclinical or insufficient human evidence. Regulatory Status: 9–10 FDA-approved for the reviewed product and indication; 7–8.9 approved drug with narrower, adjacent, or off-label context; 5–6.9 compounded or mixed product-specific status; 3–4.9 investigational with formal human development; 1–2.9 unapproved with no established therapeutic status. Effectiveness Evidence: 9–10 consistent clinically meaningful outcomes across strong trials; 7–8.9 generally consistent benefit with some limits; 5–6.9 mixed or modest outcomes; 3–4.9 preliminary signals only; 1–2.9 no reliable human effectiveness evidence. Safety / Known Risks: 9–10 comparatively well-characterized risks, clear labeling, and mature surveillance; 7–8.9 well-characterized with important manageable labeled risks; 5–6.9 meaningful uncertainty or monitoring burden; 3–4.9 limited human safety characterization; 1–2.9 major unknowns or serious unresolved concerns. A high score never means safe for everyone. Access & Convenience: 9–10 broadly available with practical administration and few access barriers; 7–8.9 generally available with prescription or routine coverage steps; 5–6.9 meaningful prior-authorization, specialty, monitoring, or administration burden; 3–4.9 restricted or difficult access; 1–2.9 not meaningfully available as an established treatment. Cost Transparency: 9–10 current public price and support terms are clear; 7–8.9 useful official pricing or support information with variability; 5–6.9 partial public information; 3–4.9 little reliable public pricing context; 1–2.9 no defensible cost information. Research compounds are normally unscored because consumer cost is not meaningfully applicable and vendor prices are excluded.
Editorial independence
Affiliate payout, commissions, popularity, social-media hype, and bodybuilding popularity never determine editorial scores.
Approved, compounded, and research
FDA approval applies to specific products and uses. Compounded products are not FDA-approved finished products. Research compounds are labeled as unapproved and evidence-limited.
Update policy
Sources and review dates are maintained and revisited as evidence changes.
MyPeptideQuest
Your evidence-first guide to peptide-based treatments. Information only. Not medical advice.