Janoshik and Finnrick do different jobs. Janoshik is an analytical lab: it tests whatever sample it receives and issues a report you can verify. Finnrick is an independent rating program: it has samples that customers bought tested at partner labs, then publishes the results as public vendor ratings. A Janoshik COA tells you about one sample. A Finnrick rating tells you about a vendor's track record across many samples customers actually received.
New to Finnrick? Start with what is Finnrick for how its vendor ratings are built, then come back for the comparison with Janoshik.
Notice: This article compares laboratory testing services for research-use-only chemicals. Research peptides are not FDA-approved and not for human or animal consumption. Nothing here is medical advice or guidance on use.
Janoshik: the lab
According to Janoshik's website:
- What it does: chemical analysis of peptides and other compounds, from samples that clients mail in.
- Pricing: tests listed from about $145 to $500+, depending on the analysis.
- Verification: reports can be checked through a "Verify" section on the site, and reports carry QR codes for authentication.
- Payment: cards, Apple Pay, Google Pay and some cryptocurrencies.
How vendors use it: many vendors send samples to Janoshik and post the resulting reports as COAs. NextGenPeps, for example, lists Janoshik as the lab on part of its COA library, and the Swiss Chems FAQ says its testing is "principally" done by Janoshik.
Strength: verifiability. A Janoshik report can be confirmed with the lab, which makes it much harder to fake than a PDF hosted only on a vendor's site. That matters in a market where, in the Paradigm Peptides case, prosecutors said the company falsely marketed its products as tested.
Limitation: the lab tests the sample it's given. If a vendor pays for the test, the vendor chooses the sample, and a single good sample doesn't prove every vial in the batch matches.
Finnrick: the rating program
According to Finnrick's website:
- What it does: "independently lab-testing peptides and publishing safety rankings." It listed 10,405 samples tested as of September 2026.
- Where samples come from: mostly customers who buy from vendors and submit samples. Free community testing is "for individuals only," and those results are published.
- Labs used: partner labs including Krause Analytical, BTLabs, Ichor Life Sciences and PharmLabs.
- What's measured: identity, purity and quantity, with optional endotoxin testing.
- Rating standard: "purity 99.5%+, dose ±35%." Vendors get a percentage rating and a rank. Its vendor directory listed 1,884 vendors, 345 of them ranked.
- Other options: paid standard testing ($250, confidential results) and custom testing.
Strength: independence from the vendor. The sample is what a customer actually received, not what the vendor picked. Finnrick's vendor pages also add written analysis, such as noting underfill or missing batch identifiers.
Limitations:
- Small samples. Many vendors have only a handful of tests or none. Swiss Chems has 10. American Peptides and PSPeptides have Finnrick profiles with no tests, Peptide Plugs has a profile with no tests too, and we found no profile for NextGenPeps or Alpha Pro Peptides.
- Skew toward popular compounds. Customers test what they buy most, so a vendor's rating may reflect only one compound.
- Dated data. A vendor's tests can be months old. Swiss Chems' most recent Finnrick test is from April 2026, so later batches aren't covered.
- A strict bar. A sample at 99.2% purity counts as a miss. That's a fair standard for a vendor advertising 99%+, but not every "fail" means a bad product.
- Handling. Customer samples go through shipping and storage before testing. Finnrick's results don't tell us how each sample was handled.
Side-by-side
| Janoshik | Finnrick | |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Analytical lab | Independent testing and rating program |
| Who picks the sample | Whoever pays (often the vendor) | Mostly the customer |
| Output | Single report per sample | Public vendor and product ratings |
| Verification | Verify tool, QR codes | Public results pages |
| Cost to requester | ~$145-$500+ | Free community testing; $250 standard |
| Best for | Confirming a specific COA is real | Checking a vendor's real-world consistency |
How the two can disagree
The gap between vendor COAs and independent results shows up in our own vendor data (as of September 26, 2026; September 28 for Licensed Peptides):
- Swiss Chems publishes 60 dated batch reports and says its testing is "principally" done by Janoshik, but Finnrick rates it 48%, with 4 of 10 customer samples passing and repeated CJC-1295 failures.
- The other seven vendors we list publish vendor-commissioned COAs but have no Finnrick tests yet, so there's nothing independent to compare them against.
This doesn't mean any lab is wrong. It usually means the sample a vendor chose to test and the vials customers received weren't the same. That's why independent data is its own factor in our method.
Other labs you'll see on COAs
Janoshik isn't the only lab name on research peptide certificates. Among the vendors we list, COAs or vendor pages name BioRegen (NextGenPeps COA library), Bioviridian (College Station, TX; American Peptides homepage), Freedom Diagnostics (an Alpha Pro Peptides COA; Peptide Plugs COA page) and North American Diagnostics (a PSPeptides COA). BioRegen, Bioviridian and Freedom Diagnostics all run public COA lookups on their own sites. The same rules apply to all of them: the lab should be named, the report should match a lot, and you should be able to confirm the report with the lab.
How to use both
- Start with the vendor's COA for your lot. If it's from Janoshik, confirm it with Janoshik's verify tool. If it's from another lab, contact that lab. See how to read a peptide COA.
- Then check the vendor's Finnrick page. Look at the number of tests, how recent they are and which compounds they cover, not just the headline percentage.
- Weigh them together. Verified COAs with poor independent results suggest inconsistency. Independent passes with no verifiable COAs suggest weak documentation practice. You want both.
For vendors ranked on exactly this combination, see third-party tested peptides and the overall rankings. For a worked example on a vendor we don't list, our Peptidology review sets its published COAs against its Finnrick results.
Based on the public Janoshik and Finnrick websites as of September 26, 2026.
