Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

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.

ASC36_35FDC

A fixed-dose combination of two separate investigational peptides — amylin receptor agonist ASC36 and GLP-1/GIP agonist ASC35 — in Phase 1 for obesity.

L1Theory onlyIn clinical trials
Full profile

ASC36

An investigational long-acting amylin receptor peptide agonist in Phase 1 studies for obesity, with no efficacy results in people.

L1Theory onlyIn clinical trials
Full profile

How far human research has progressed

ASC36_35FDC

Phase 1 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled single and multiple ascending dose study in obesity or overweight with weight-related comorbidities, initiated August 2026 (sponsor-reported); no efficacy results

ASC36

Phase 1 studies initiated in the US during 2026 (injection August 2026, oral tablet September 2026), sponsor-reported; no efficacy results in people

Claim-specific benefit evidence

A human exposure study or trial registration does not establish that the claimed benefit occurs.

ASC36_35FDC

Not separately assessed; see the full profile.

ASC36

Not separately assessed; see the full profile.

Human research context

ASC36_35FDC

Phase 1 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled single and multiple ascending dose study in obesity or overweight with weight-related comorbidities, initiated August 2026 (sponsor-reported); no efficacy results

ASC36

Phase 1 studies initiated in the US during 2026 (injection August 2026, oral tablet September 2026), sponsor-reported; no efficacy results in people

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.

ASC36_35FDC

Strength of the human efficacy evidence8 of 100 evidence strength

ASC36

Strength of the human efficacy evidence8 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.

ASC36_35FDC

Strength of the animal and lab evidence35 of 100 evidence strength

ASC36

Strength of the animal and lab evidence38 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.

ASC36_35FDC

Strength of the human safety evidence8 of 100 evidence strength

ASC36

Strength of the human safety evidence8 of 100 evidence strength

Regulatory status (legal position, not proof it works)

ASC36_35FDC

Check jurisdiction-specific details in the profile.

Not approved anywhere. The sponsor reports US IND clearance and Phase 1 initiation in August 2026. This is a combination of two distinct molecules, so evidence for either component alone is not evidence for the combination.

ASC36

Check jurisdiction-specific details in the profile.

Not approved anywhere. The sponsor reports US investigational new drug clearance and initiated Phase 1 studies in 2026. IND clearance permits human testing; it is not approval and not evidence of benefit.

Common claims

ASC36_35FDC

  • · Three targets in one monthly injection
  • · Beats eloralintide plus tirzepatide

ASC36

  • · Monthly or quarterly weight-loss injection
  • · Better weight loss than other amylin drugs

How settled our evidence rating is

ASC36_35FDC

Very low confidence in ratingL1Theory only

ASC36

Very low confidence in ratingL1Theory only

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.

ASC36_35FDC

Not established. No human data exist in either direction.

ASC36

Not established. No human data exist in either direction.

What this adds up to, in plain English

ASC36_35FDC

This sits in theory and anecdote. Popular claims about it should be treated with very low confidence.

ASC36

This sits in theory and anecdote. Popular claims about it should be treated with very low confidence.

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.