Skip to content
Peptide Evidence RegistryFollow the evidence

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.

L3Early human studiesNot approved for this use
Full profile

LL-37

A human antimicrobial peptide studied topically for wound healing, now marketed for unrelated systemic uses.

L3Early human studiesNot approved for this use
Full profile

How far human research has progressed

ARA-290

Small randomised human studies in a narrow indication; no approval

LL-37

Phase II/IIb topical wound studies completed; primary outcome not met in the larger study

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

Strength of the human efficacy evidence30 of 100 evidence strength

LL-37

Strength of the human efficacy evidence22 of 100 evidence strength

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

Strength of the animal and lab evidence55 of 100 evidence strength

LL-37

Strength of the animal and lab evidence60 of 100 evidence strength

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

Strength of the human safety evidence25 of 100 evidence strength

LL-37

Strength of the human safety evidence18 of 100 evidence strength

Regulatory status (legal position, not proof it works)

ARA-290

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.

LL-37

Not an approved medicine. Its clinical study history is topical, in hard-to-heal wounds. Injectable or systemic use for infections, 'immune reset' or biohacking purposes is unstudied. Compounding-nomination status has changed during 2026 and should be read cautiously.

Common claims

ARA-290

  • · Repairs damaged nerves
  • · Reduces neuropathic pain
  • · General anti-inflammatory and recovery agent

LL-37

  • · Heals chronic wounds
  • · Treats resistant infections
  • · Resets or boosts the immune system when injected

How settled our evidence rating is

ARA-290

Low confidence in ratingL3Early human studies

LL-37

Very low confidence in ratingL3Early human studies

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.

LL-37

Laboratory work reports both tumour-promoting and tumour-suppressing effects depending on tissue. Nothing is established in humans; the honest position is unresolved.

What this adds up to, in plain English

ARA-290

There is some early human signal, but it is far weaker than the broad claims made about it online.

LL-37

There is some early human signal, but it is far weaker than the broad claims made about it online.

A comparison is not a recommendation

Neither column here is an endorsement, and the compound with the higher numbers is not the “better” or “safer” one — it is simply the one with more or better-quality research behind it. Two compounds can both be poorly evidenced, and better-evidenced says nothing about whether either is a sensible idea for a specific person. That is a conversation for a qualified clinician.