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.

IGF-1 LR3

A modified long-acting IGF-1 analogue sold for bodybuilding, and not the same thing as approved IGF-1 medicine.

L1Theory onlyNot approved for this use
Full profile

AOD-9604

A growth-hormone fragment marketed for fat loss whose own obesity trials failed to establish a benefit.

L2Animal / lab studiesNot approved for this use
Full profile

How far human research has progressed

IGF-1 LR3

No adequate human trial evidence for the LR3 analogue itself

AOD-9604

Reached Phase 2b in obesity; development discontinued without an established benefit

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.

IGF-1 LR3

Strength of the human efficacy evidence5 of 100 evidence strength

AOD-9604

Strength of the human efficacy evidence12 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.

IGF-1 LR3

Strength of the animal and lab evidence40 of 100 evidence strength

AOD-9604

Strength of the animal and lab evidence40 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.

IGF-1 LR3

Strength of the human safety evidence8 of 100 evidence strength

AOD-9604

Strength of the human safety evidence15 of 100 evidence strength

Regulatory status (legal position, not proof it works)

IGF-1 LR3

Not an approved medicine in any region. It must not be confused with approved recombinant human IGF-1 (mecasermin), which is licensed for specific rare growth disorders under medical supervision and is a different product with a different evidence base. IGF-1 LR3 is prohibited in sport.

AOD-9604

Not an approved medicine for weight loss or anything else in any major region. FDA compounding material notes limited safety information. It is sold widely as a research chemical and heavily discussed in fat-loss communities. It is also prohibited in sport.

Common claims

IGF-1 LR3

  • · Muscle growth and hyperplasia
  • · Nutrient partitioning and fat loss
  • · Enhanced recovery between training sessions

AOD-9604

  • · Targeted fat loss without growth hormone side effects
  • · Works because it is 'the fat-loss part of HGH'
  • · Cartilage and joint repair

How settled our evidence rating is

IGF-1 LR3

Very low confidence in ratingL1Theory only

AOD-9604

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.

IGF-1 LR3

Sustained IGF-1 receptor signalling is one of the better-grounded theoretical cancer concerns in this field, given its role in cell proliferation. That is a mechanistic concern, not a demonstrated human risk for this product — and the absence of studies is not reassurance.

AOD-9604

No established human cancer signal specific to this fragment. Growth-hormone-axis concerns discussed for full growth hormone do not transfer automatically to a fragment with no established receptor activity.

What this adds up to, in plain English

IGF-1 LR3

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

AOD-9604

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.