Vendor dossier · Tianjin
Tianjin Finder Chemical Co., Ltd.
A Tianjin exporter carrying verification from all four independent services, and the only company here that has published its integration convention.
Journal grade · ranked 13 of 28
737 reader reports
on the record
TFC is a competent exporter with verification records at all four independent testing services and a documentation set above the median for this directory. It is also the only company in the programme that has set out, in writing and for publication, exactly how it integrates a chromatogram — a 0.05% reporting threshold with nothing discarded from the total peak area, including the early-eluting material most methods write off as solvent-related. That single disclosure explains the whole of the gap between its figures and anybody else’s.
Storefront The company sells directly at tfcpeptides.com. Visit TFC → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
The record
Ten independent purity determinations, mean 97.6%, range 96.9 to 98.6%, each at or above the figure printed on the accompanying certificate. The vendor’s own number sits consistently a few tenths below ours, which is the signature of an integration convention rather than of anything else: a house that counts every peak it can see into the denominator will publish a lower figure than a laboratory reporting to a 0.1% threshold on the same vial. The convention is now published, so a reader can do the reconciliation themselves.
We put three side-by-side chromatograms to the company and received one of the most useful technical exchanges this dossier project has had. The convention is defensible, it is disclosed on request, and TFC has since begun printing the threshold on the certificate itself, which is what this department had asked the whole trade to do. Where a supplier answers a technical challenge with a technical answer, the file records it.
Fulfilment is good: ten of ten delivered, median transit ten days, correct customs classification on every consignment. The person answering technical email has clearly seen a chromatogram, which is not universal and makes a considerable difference to how quickly a question closes.
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
- Ten independent purity determinations, mean 97.6% (range 96.9 to 98.6%), each at or above the figure printed on the accompanying certificate.
- Verification records with all four independent services, confirmed directly with each.
- A written, specific and now published account of the vendor’s integration convention: a 0.05% reporting threshold with no peak discarded from the total area.
- Ten of ten orders delivered, median transit ten days, correct tariff classification on all ten.
Ordering: lead times, minimums and what to ask for
- Lead time: two working days to dispatch; median transit ten days with the tariff classification handled at origin.
- Minimum quantity: single vials; ten-unit and fifty-unit breaks quoted in writing.
- Regional stock: export-ready stock is held at Tianjin rather than regionally, which is why the transit figure is a shipping time rather than a pick time.
- The certificate carries the integration threshold, the batch and the specification. Ask for the chromatogram and the batch record by quoting the batch number and the determination date.
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 | Tesamorelin 20 mg | 96.7% | 97.3% | 100% |
| 2026-01 | VendorInvestigate | Liraglutide 2 mg | 96.6% | 97.4% | 100% |
| 2025-11 | Medutest | Tesamorelin 15 mg | 96.5% | 97.1% | 100% |
| 2025-07 | VendorInvestigate | BPC-157 15 mg | 98.4% | 98.6% | not tested |
| 2025-05 | PeptideMeter | Tesamorelin 10 mg | 98.4% | 98.6% | not tested |
| 2025-02 | Medutest | Tirzepatide 5 mg | 96.6% | 96.9% | not tested |
| 2024-11 | Medutest | Tesamorelin 15 mg | 96.8% | 97.3% | not tested |
| 2024-07 | Janoshik | BPC-157 5 mg | 97.0% | 97.5% | not tested |
| 2024-04 | VendorInvestigate | BPC-157 5 mg | 97.5% | 97.8% | not tested |
| 2024-01 | VendorInvestigate | Liraglutide 10 mg | 97.4% | 97.5% | 99% |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-05 | Asked for the name and location of the synthesis facility | Answered in full within 4 working days; site named, with the province and the line |
| 2025-11 | Asked which catalogue items are synthesised in-house | Answered in full within 2 working days; the in-house list was itemised |
| 2025-09 | Requested the cold-chain arrangement between the fill site and dispatch | Answered in full within 5 working days; temperature indicator make and threshold supplied |
| 2025-02 | Requested the counter-ion form and residual solvent data | Answered in full; counter-ion stated as the acetate salt, with residual solvent figures attached |
| 2024-11 | Asked whether a certificate can be reissued to an earlier purchaser on request | Answered in full within 3 working days; retention period stated and the request route given |
| 2024-07 | Requested the analytical method behind the stated purity figure | Answered in full within 2 working days; method, gradient and wavelength supplied |
| 2024-01 | Asked whether sterility or endotoxin testing is performed | Answered in full; neither is performed as standard, and both were priced on request |
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. 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 have been buying hexarelin 5 mg here since before the catalogue expanded, and the expansion has not cost the original lines anything in consistency. The reorder at 20 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.
A custom-synthesis enquiry produced a quotation with a timeline I judged realistic, and the material was delivered 3 days inside it, at the purity specified in the signed schedule. 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.
This is the only supplier I deal with that prints its integration threshold on the certificate, which means I can reconcile their figure with my own instead of wondering. My determination came back at 99.3%. 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.
What distinguishes the documentation here is that it carries the residual-solvent screen. Readers who have spent any time comparing certificates will recognise how unusual that is. The retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate. A single purchaser is not a dataset and I do not present myself as one.
Every unit in the consignment carried the same lot number, so the comparison I intended to make was in fact the comparison I made. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. These compounds are for research use and are not approved for administration to humans.
I reordered the same line at 8 months specifically to test for process drift. The independent figure was 97.2% against 97.2% originally. 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.
I weighed 10 vials from a PT-141 10 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 reorder at 6 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 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. 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.
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 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.
The reconstitution behaviour of the CJC-1295 2 mg was exemplary — the cake went into solution on contact, without haze and without the prolonged agitation that usually signals a poorly executed lyophilisation. The retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate. I record no complaint worth the Journal’s column inches.
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. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. The documentation is as much the product as the powder.
I submitted a vial of PT-141 10 mg to VendorInvestigate without disclosing its origin, and separately to Janoshik. The two results agreed to within a tenth of a point, and both agreed with the certificate. No filler was present and the cake was intact rather than collapsed. I have no relationship with this supplier beyond having paid them.
Stock availability as displayed proved accurate, the order shipped the same day, and the material was in my hands on day 8. The reorder at 8 months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. Consistency rather than brilliance, and consistency is what I was buying.
A technical query about counter-ion identity and content was answered with a figure and a unit, rather than with an assurance about quality. Nothing in the consignment rattled, which is a design decision rather than luck. I shall continue to buy here, which is the only assessment that costs the writer anything.
Peptide content is stated separately from chromatographic purity. Those are different quantities and conflating them is the commonest error in this market. The gradient and the column chemistry are both stated, so the determination could in principle be repeated. I offer this as one reader’s record and not as a general finding.
The storage condition against which the stability statement was written was volunteered rather than extracted, which suggests the statement was written rather than assembled. The retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate. Nothing here constitutes medical advice and I am not qualified to offer any.
I asked for a second certificate for a lot bought eight months earlier and they found it. The reply was substantive and arrived within the working day, and it did not arrive attached to a sales approach. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. The price differential is justified by the paperwork alone.
Over 9 months I have placed 6 orders for melanotan II 10 mg without encountering a substitution, a silent reformulation, or a line that proved unavailable after payment had cleared. No filler was present and the cake was intact rather than collapsed. A single purchaser is not a dataset and I do not present myself as one.
The tariff classification has been correct on every consignment, which sounds dull until you have had one held. The reorder at fourteen months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. These compounds are for research use and are not approved for administration to humans.
Five orders and the person answering technical email has clearly seen a chromatogram, which shortens every exchange. Nothing in the consignment rattled, which is a design decision rather than luck. Should the next lot hold, I shall stop testing every one. That is intended as praise.
Customs documentation was correct on first presentation, which is the actual explanation for a transit time that would otherwise look implausible. The gradient and the column chemistry are both stated, so the determination could in principle be repeated. On the evidence available to me they are the default rather than the risk.
A second certificate was requested for a lot purchased 8 months previously. It was retrieved from their records and sent without demur. The retention time assigned to the main peak is printed on the certificate. Readers should test their own material regardless of anyone else’s figures, including mine.
My first order was deliberately modest, being a single line of GHRP-2 5 mg. Documentation, transit and an independent result at 97.3% were all satisfactory, and subsequent orders have not been modest. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. I would place the next order without the precaution of making it small.
The certificate accompanying lot TFC-25-239 was complete on first issue. No supplementary request was necessary, which spared a correspondence that with other suppliers has run to a fortnight. No filler was present and the cake was intact rather than collapsed. I record no complaint worth the Journal’s column inches.
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 reorder at 20 months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. The documentation is as much the product as the powder.
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 tfcpeptides.com. Visit TFC → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
Tianjin Finder Chemical 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.