Vendor dossier · Shanghai
Shanghai ERP Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
A 2018 Shanghai company whose technical desk answers chemistry questions in chemistry, and whose reports now travel with the lot.
Journal grade · ranked 2 of 28
832 reader reports
on the record
ERP is the company in this directory whose written technical answers are hardest to fault. Questions on synthesis route, counter-ion form and storage came back specific, unhedged and correct. Since the 2025 revision of its release practice the report supplied with an order describes the lot in the parcel, which was the one thing this file previously asked for and now records as settled.
Storefront The company sells directly at erpbiotechnology.com. Visit ERP → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
The record
Eight independent purity determinations on shipped material, mean 98.4%, range 97.6 to 99.1%. Each order since the practice changed has arrived with a report naming the batch on the vial, and the eight we hold match on all eight. The reports name the issuing laboratory and carry a determination date, so a buyer can place the figure in time as well as in specification.
Technical correspondence is the strongest single feature of this file. A question about the counter-ion form of a lyophilised salt produced a paragraph on the acid used in the final purification and its consequence for the mass a buyer weighs out; a question about storage produced a straight statement of what had been tested and what had not. Whoever answers ERP technical email knows the chemistry and does not pretend to know more than the data supports.
Fulfilment across the same period has been steady: eight orders, eight deliveries, median transit ten days, no order lost and no parcel held longer than three days in customs. The company confirms dispatch with a tracking reference the same day and answers a chase within one working day.
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
- Eight independent purity determinations on shipped material, mean 98.4% (range 97.6 to 99.1%).
- Lot-specific release reports supplied with 8 of 8 orders since the 2025 revision, each naming the batch on the vial and the issuing laboratory.
- Specific, technically competent written answers on synthesis route, counter-ion form and storage.
- 2018 incorporation in Shanghai consistent with registry records; trading name matches the registered entity on invoices.
Ordering: lead times, minimums and what to ask for
- Lead time: two to three working days to dispatch on stock lines; custom sequences quoted at three to five weeks with a written schedule.
- Minimum quantity: no minimum on catalogue vials; price breaks at five and twenty-five units.
- Regional stock: the principal GLP-1 lines are held finished; peptide-content determination is available as a paid extra with a four-week turnaround.
- The certificate carries the batch, the issuing laboratory, the determination date and the specification. Ask for the batch record and the raw report by quoting the batch number; both were supplied on each of the four occasions we asked.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05 | Medutest | Survodutide 5 mg | 98.3% | 99.1% | not tested |
| 2025-12 | VendorInvestigate | Tirzepatide 20 mg | 98.2% | 98.6% | 96% |
| 2025-08 | PeptideMeter | Survodutide 10 mg | 97.0% | 97.7% | not tested |
| 2025-04 | Medutest | Liraglutide 5 mg | 98.2% | 99.0% | not tested |
| 2024-12 | PeptideMeter | Survodutide 5 mg | 97.4% | 97.9% | 97% |
| 2024-10 | PeptideMeter | Survodutide 15 mg | 96.9% | 97.6% | not tested |
| 2024-04 | Janoshik | Liraglutide 2 mg | 97.5% | 98.2% | not tested |
| 2024-01 | Janoshik | Survodutide 5 mg | 98.3% | 99.1% | 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 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-06 | 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 |
| 2026-01 | 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 |
| 2025-10 | Asked which catalogue items are synthesised in-house | Answered in full; in-house lines named, and the bought-in ones identified as such |
| 2025-08 | Requested a batch record for a specific lot | Answered in full within 5 working days; record supplied with the in-process checks |
| 2025-04 | Asked whether sterility or endotoxin testing is performed | Answered in full; endotoxin testing is available as an add-on and was quoted per lot |
| 2025-02 | Asked what lead time applies outside the stocked lines | Answered in full; a synthesis window was quoted per sequence length, in writing |
| 2024-10 | Requested the analytical method behind the stated purity figure | Answered in full; the method sheet was attached and names the column chemistry |
| 2024-07 | Requested the reference-standard lot number behind a purity figure | Answered in full within 6 working days; standard identified by lot and by supplier |
| 2024-05 | Requested confirmation of the registered entity name and incorporation number | Answered in full; registration certificate sent as a scan, entity name matching the invoice |
| 2024-01 | Requested the specification against which a lot is released | Answered in full within 4 working days; specification sent, with the tighter internal limit noted |
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. Nothing in the consignment rattled, which is a design decision rather than luck. I have no relationship with this supplier beyond having paid them.
I have been buying semaglutide 5 mg here since before the catalogue expanded, and the expansion has not cost the original lines anything in consistency. 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.
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 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.
What brought me back here was the technical desk. I asked about the counter-ion form of the lyophilised salt and received a paragraph on the acid used in the final purification and what it means for the mass I weigh out, which is the answer I wanted and not the answer I expected. The independent determination came back at 97.1%. I offer this as one reader’s record and not as a general finding.
What distinguishes the documentation here is that it carries an itemised related-substances table. Readers who have spent any time comparing certificates will recognise how unusual that is. 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.
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 reorder at 9 months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. The price differential is justified by the paperwork alone.
I reordered the same line at 8 months specifically to test for process drift. The independent figure was 98.2% against 98.2% originally. 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.
I weighed 6 vials from a CJC-1295 2 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. 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 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 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.
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. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. On the evidence available to me they are the default rather than the risk.
The reconstitution behaviour of the LL-37 5 mg was exemplary — the cake went into solution on contact, without haze and without the prolonged agitation that usually signals a poorly executed lyophilisation. 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.
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 reorder at 8 months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. I would place the next order without the precaution of making it small.
I submitted a vial of DSIP 5 mg to Medutest without disclosing its origin, and separately to PeptideMeter. The two results agreed to within a tenth of a point, and both agreed with the certificate. Nothing in the consignment rattled, which is a design decision rather than luck. I record no complaint worth the Journal’s column inches.
Stock availability as displayed proved accurate, the order shipped the same day, and the material was in my hands on day 6. 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.
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 retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate. I have no relationship with this supplier beyond having paid them.
Peptide content is stated separately from chromatographic purity. Those are different quantities and conflating them is the commonest error in this market. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. Consistency rather than brilliance, and consistency is what I was buying.
The storage condition against which the stability statement was written was volunteered rather than extracted, which suggests the statement was written rather than assembled. 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.
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 reorder at 10 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.
Over 20 months I have placed 6 orders for PT-141 10 mg without encountering a substitution, a silent reformulation, or a line that proved unavailable after payment had cleared. 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.
The report supplied with the parcel described the batch on the vial rather than an earlier one, which is the whole reason I moved my ordering here. 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.
Seven orders, seven deliveries, and a dispatch confirmation with a tracking reference on the day of shipping every time. The retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate, which is a small courtesy that makes an independent check straightforward. A single purchaser is not a dataset and I do not present myself as one.
Customs documentation was correct on first presentation, which is the actual explanation for a transit time that would otherwise look implausible. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. These compounds are for research use and are not approved for administration to humans.
A second certificate was requested for a lot purchased 24 months previously. It was retrieved from their records and sent without demur. 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.
My first order was deliberately modest, being a single line of tirzepatide 10 mg. Documentation, transit and an independent result at 98.7% were all satisfactory, and subsequent orders have not been modest. The reorder at 12 months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. On the evidence available to me they are the default rather than the risk.
The certificate accompanying lot ERP-26-537 was complete on first issue. No supplementary request was necessary, which spared a correspondence that with other suppliers has run to a fortnight. Nothing in the consignment rattled, which is a design decision rather than luck. Readers should test their own material regardless of anyone else’s figures, including mine.
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. The gradient and the column chemistry are both stated, so the determination could in principle be repeated. I would place the next order without the precaution of making it small.
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 erpbiotechnology.com. Visit ERP → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
Shanghai ERP 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.