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.

Epitalon

Longevity claims built on an old, narrow and largely unreplicated body of research.

L1Theory onlyResearch / unapproved supply
Full profile

MOTS-c

A mitochondrial-derived peptide with genuinely interesting biology and thin translational data.

L2Animal / lab studiesResearch / unapproved supply
Full profile

How far human research has progressed

Epitalon

Preclinical and historical small-scale human reports

MOTS-c

Preclinical with early translational human observation

Claim-specific benefit evidence

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

Epitalon

Not separately assessed; see the full profile.

MOTS-c

Not separately assessed; see the full profile.

Human research context

Epitalon

Preclinical and historical small-scale human reports

MOTS-c

Preclinical with early translational human observation

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.

Epitalon

Strength of the human efficacy evidence10 of 100 evidence strength

MOTS-c

Strength of the human efficacy evidence20 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.

Epitalon

Strength of the animal and lab evidence45 of 100 evidence strength

MOTS-c

Strength of the animal and lab evidence70 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.

Epitalon

Strength of the human safety evidence10 of 100 evidence strength

MOTS-c

Strength of the human safety evidence12 of 100 evidence strength

Regulatory status (legal position, not proof it works)

Epitalon

Check jurisdiction-specific details in the profile.

Not an approved medicine in major regions. Sold as a research compound. FDA has treated epitalon as a bulk substance raising significant safety risks for compounding; that listing status changed during 2026 and it was covered by FDA's July 2026 advisory committee review.

MOTS-c

Check jurisdiction-specific details in the profile.

Not an approved medicine. Research compound; also prohibited in sport. FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee considered MOTS-c in July 2026 for possible inclusion on the 503A Bulks List. Its recommendations are non-binding: this is a compounding-policy process, not FDA drug approval, validation of efficacy claims or blanket legalisation.

Common claims

Epitalon

  • · Lengthens telomeres
  • · Extends human lifespan
  • · Restores pineal and circadian function

MOTS-c

  • · Reverses age-related metabolic decline
  • · Improves insulin sensitivity and exercise capacity
  • · Extends healthspan

How settled our evidence rating is

Epitalon

Very low confidence in ratingL1Theory only

MOTS-c

Very low confidence in ratingL2Animal / lab 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.

Epitalon

Telomerase reactivation is a hallmark of many cancers, so deliberately activating it is a legitimate theoretical concern. There is no human evidence that Epitalon causes cancer — and no human evidence that it does not. Unknown is the accurate word.

MOTS-c

AMPK signalling has context-dependent roles in cancer biology — sometimes tumour-suppressive, sometimes supportive of stress survival. This is a mechanistic unknown, not a demonstrated risk or benefit in humans.

What this adds up to, in plain English

Epitalon

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

MOTS-c

The interesting work is in animals and lab studies. Treating it as an established human treatment is not supported by evidence.

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.