Comparison Centre
Two compounds, the same questions, no cherry-picking
Marketing compares compounds on whichever measure flatters them. This compares them on the same fields every time — including the awkward ones like how much human safety data exists. Every score here rates the evidence, not the compound: a higher number means stronger or more mature research, not that something is safer or works better.
Sharing keeps the two compounds you picked.
How to read these scores
Every number here rates the evidence, not the compound. They are editorial 0-100 strength ratings, not percentages, and not a rating out of five stars.
- Human efficacy evidence strength — Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
- Preclinical evidence strength — Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
- Human safety evidence strength — Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number. A score of 80 does not mean “80% safe”.
- Evidence level (L0-L5) — the strongest type of study behind the compound, from anecdote (L0) to large replicated human trials (L5). It is a description of the study evidence, not a quality, safety or recommendation rating.
- Confidence — how likely we think it is that this rating changes as new research lands. Low confidence means the picture is unsettled, not that the compound is bad.
None of these ratings is medical advice, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use anything. How we grade evidence.
ARA-290
An 11-amino-acid EPO-derived peptide with real randomised human data in one narrow neuropathy setting.
BPC-157
The internet's favourite healing peptide: a mountain of rodent data and almost no controlled human evidence.
How far human research has progressed
ARA-290
Small randomised human studies in a narrow indication; no approvalBPC-157
Preclinical for healing claims, with uncontrolled human observational documentation and a recruiting Phase 2 trial with no resultsClaim-specific benefit evidence
A human exposure study or trial registration does not establish that the claimed benefit occurs.
ARA-290
Not separately assessed; see the full profile.BPC-157
Musculoskeletal healing: animal and laboratory findings; no adequately controlled human efficacy results.
Human research context
ARA-290
Small randomised human studies in a narrow indication; no approvalBPC-157
L3 describes retrospective clinical-note surveillance of human exposure and reported symptoms, not demonstrated healing efficacy.Human efficacy evidence strength
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
ARA-290
BPC-157
Preclinical (animal / lab) evidence strength
Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
ARA-290
BPC-157
Human safety evidence strength
Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.
ARA-290
BPC-157
Regulatory status (legal position, not proof it works)
ARA-290
Check jurisdiction-specific details in the profile.
Not an approved medicine in any major region. Its human evidence comes from small randomised studies in small-fibre neuropathy associated with sarcoidosis — a specific condition, not general nerve pain, recovery or neuroprotection.
BPC-157
Check jurisdiction-specific details in the profile.
Not an approved medicine in any major region, and it remains widely sold as a 'research chemical'. On 23 July 2026, FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee voted 8-6 with one abstention to recommend BPC-157-related bulk substances for the 503A Bulks List, despite FDA staff's recommendation against inclusion. The FDA evaluated ulcerative colitis, not musculoskeletal healing. The committee vote is advisory and does not itself establish final FDA listing or drug approval. Advisory committee recommendations are non-binding: this is a compounding-policy process, not FDA drug approval, validation of efficacy claims or blanket legalisation. Our curated record does not establish a final FDA determination after that meeting. Compounding-policy update: FDA's nominations document updated on 22 April 2026 records that several nominated peptide substances were removed from the interim 503A Category 2 list because the nominations were withdrawn, with Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC) consultation planned. FDA then held a PCAC meeting on 23-24 July 2026 covering these substances. That is an advisory and compounding-policy process only: it is not FDA approval, not a finding that any of these compounds work, and not a blanket legalisation. Our curated record does not establish a final FDA determination after that meeting.
Common claims
ARA-290
- · Repairs damaged nerves
- · Reduces neuropathic pain
- · General anti-inflammatory and recovery agent
BPC-157
- · Heals tendons, ligaments and muscle tears
- · Repairs the gut lining and helps IBD
- · Reduces inflammation and speeds recovery from almost anything
How settled our evidence rating is
ARA-290
BPC-157
Cancer-related questions raised by the biology
These are theoretical or monitored questions raised by how a compound works. They are not evidence that it causes cancer.
ARA-290
EPO-pathway biology raises theoretical questions about tissue growth signalling, but no human cancer signal has been established for this peptide.BPC-157
The most common concern is that promoting angiogenesis could theoretically support tumour growth. This is a mechanistic hypothesis (Level 1), not a demonstrated human cancer risk — no human data show BPC-157 causes cancer. Equally, no human data show it is safe in people with cancer. Both statements are true at once, and that is exactly the point.What this adds up to, in plain English
ARA-290
Preliminary human observations exist, but they may not establish a treatment-attributable benefit.BPC-157
Musculoskeletal healing: animal and laboratory findings; no adequately controlled human efficacy results.A comparison is not a recommendation