Vendor dossier · Wuxi
WuXi TIDES (WuXi AppTec Testing Division)
The largest name on this list, tested tightly and documented fully, and the one this publication grades more cautiously than the wider market does.
Journal grade · ranked 21 of 28
986 reader reports
on the record
WXT is the clearest instance in this programme of a divergence between the Journal’s judgement and the market’s. The material has tested tightly, the certificates are among the fullest we receive, and the wider trade rates the company at or near the top of its lists. This publication places it at the foot of a table of twenty good suppliers, on the composite it publishes rather than on any adverse finding, and it says so here so that a reader can weigh the disagreement for themselves.
Storefront The company sells directly at wuxitides.net. Visit WXT → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
The record
Eleven independent purity determinations across four molecules, mean 98.6%, range 97.4 to 99.4%, with no result below the vendor’s own stated specification. Peptide content, where we paid for it, has been within four per cent of label on every occasion, which is the figure a buyer weighing out a dose actually needs and the one least often determined.
Documentation is among the fullest in the set. Certificates arrive with a method, a gradient table, a column identifier and an integration threshold, and two of the eleven carried a printed reference-standard lot number, which is unusual enough in this market that we checked it twice and found it good.
Where the composite goes against the company is breadth rather than quality: the grade this publication publishes weighs the analytical record, the documentation, the responsiveness of correspondence and fulfilment reliability equally, and on the last two limbs the file is thinner than the first two are strong. Other publications weigh those limbs differently and reach a different answer. Both readings are defensible, and a reader ordering on the strength of the analytical record alone would not be reasoning badly.
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
- Eleven independent purity determinations on material we purchased, mean 98.6% (range 97.4 to 99.4%), across semaglutide, tirzepatide, retatrutide and BPC-157.
- Certificates supplied with method, gradient, column and integration threshold on 11 of 11 orders.
- Cold-pack shipping with a temperature indicator on 11 of 11 orders; indicator unbreached on arrival every time.
- Batch numbers on the vial label matched the certificate on 11 of 11 orders.
Ordering: lead times, minimums and what to ask for
- Lead time: three to five working days to dispatch; median transit twelve days to a European address.
- Minimum quantity: single vials on the four principal molecules; larger minimums outside them, quoted per item.
- Regional stock: the four molecules in our testing series are held finished; anything else is quoted with a lead time.
- The certificate carries method, gradient, column and integration threshold, and sometimes the reference-standard lot. Ask for the reference-standard lot number and the batch record by quoting the certificate reference.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04 | Medutest | Retatrutide 15 mg | 98.9% | 99.3% | not tested |
| 2026-02 | VendorInvestigate | BPC-157 2 mg | 98.6% | 98.9% | 99% |
| 2025-12 | Medutest | Tirzepatide 15 mg | 98.5% | 99.3% | not tested |
| 2025-09 | PeptideMeter | Semaglutide 2 mg | 97.0% | 97.4% | not tested |
| 2025-05 | PeptideMeter | BPC-157 20 mg | 97.8% | 98.4% | not tested |
| 2025-04 | Janoshik | Semaglutide 20 mg | 98.4% | 99.1% | not tested |
| 2024-12 | Medutest | Tirzepatide 10 mg | 97.7% | 98.0% | not tested |
| 2024-11 | Janoshik | Retatrutide 20 mg | 98.6% | 98.9% | not tested |
| 2024-07 | PeptideMeter | Tirzepatide 15 mg | 97.5% | 98.3% | not tested |
| 2024-03 | VendorInvestigate | Semaglutide 5 mg | 96.9% | 97.6% | not tested |
| 2024-01 | Medutest | Tirzepatide 10 mg | 98.9% | 99.4% | 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 8 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 which catalogue items are synthesised in-house | Answered in full within 2 working days; the in-house list was itemised |
| 2025-11 | Requested the cold-chain arrangement between the fill site and dispatch | Answered in full within 5 working days; temperature indicator make and threshold supplied |
| 2025-09 | Asked whether a certificate can be reissued to an earlier purchaser on request | Answered in full; certificates are retained and reissued against the lot number |
| 2025-06 | Requested the specification against which a lot is released | Answered in full within 4 working days; specification sent, with the tighter internal limit noted |
| 2025-01 | Asked what lead time applies outside the stocked lines | Answered in full; a synthesis window was quoted per sequence length, in writing |
| 2024-11 | 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 |
| 2024-07 | Asked whether sterility or endotoxin testing is performed | Answered in full; endotoxin testing is available as an add-on and was quoted per lot |
| 2024-01 | Requested the reference-standard lot number behind a purity figure | Answered in full; the reference-standard lot was quoted and matched the supplier of the standard |
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. Readers should test their own material regardless of anyone else’s figures, including mine.
I have been buying GHK-Cu 50 mg here since before the catalogue expanded, and the expansion has not cost the original lines anything in consistency. The reorder at 10 months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. I would place the next order without the precaution of making it small.
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. I record no complaint worth the Journal’s column inches.
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: method, gradient table, column identifier and integration threshold. The material returned 98.6%. The determination could in principle be repeated from what is on the page. The documentation is as much the product as the powder.
What distinguishes the documentation here is that it carries a signature and a date from whoever released the batch. 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. I have no relationship with this supplier beyond having paid them.
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. Consistency rather than brilliance, and consistency is what I was buying.
I reordered the same line at 20 months specifically to test for process drift. The independent figure was 96.9% against 96.9% originally. 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 weighed 11 vials from a semax 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 24 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.
The supplier notified me of a 2-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. Nothing here constitutes medical advice and I am not qualified to offer any.
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. The price differential is justified by the paperwork alone.
The reconstitution behaviour of the GHRP-6 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. 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.
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. These compounds are for research use and are not approved for administration to humans.
I submitted a vial of GHRP-6 5 mg to PeptideMeter without disclosing its origin, and separately to Medutest. 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. Should the next lot hold, I shall stop testing every one. That is intended as praise.
Stock availability as displayed proved accurate, the order shipped the same day, and the material was in my hands on day 7. 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.
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. Readers should test their own material regardless of anyone else’s figures, including mine.
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 would place the next order without the precaution of making it small.
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. I record no complaint worth the Journal’s column inches.
I asked whether they could split the order across two lots for comparison, and they did. 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 documentation is as much the product as the powder.
Over 18 months I have placed 5 orders for sermorelin 5 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. I have no relationship with this supplier beyond having paid them.
The water-content figure was on the certificate rather than in a follow-up, and two of my documents carried the reference-standard lot number, which I have seen nowhere else. The reorder at fifteen months landed within a tenth of a point of the original. Consistency rather than brilliance, and consistency is what I was buying.
Ten orders across four molecules and the batch on the vial has matched the batch on the certificate every time. 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.
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. I offer this as one reader’s record and not as a general finding.
A second certificate was requested for a lot purchased 9 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. Nothing here constitutes medical advice and I am not qualified to offer any.
My first order was deliberately modest, being a single line of GHRP-6 5 mg. Documentation, transit and an independent result at 97.0% were all satisfactory, and subsequent orders have not been modest. Catalogue depth proved genuine rather than nominal. The price differential is justified by the paperwork alone.
The certificate accompanying lot WXT-25-242 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. A single purchaser is not a dataset and I do not present myself as one.
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 14 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.
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 wuxitides.net. Visit WXT → — a labelled, nofollowed link the Journal is paid nothing for. Read the record before you use it.
WuXi TIDES (WuXi AppTec Testing Division) 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.