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.

Orexin A

The natural wake-promoting neuropeptide; two small crossover studies tested intranasal dosing in narcolepsy. Not the same as approved orexin receptor drugs.

L2Animal / lab studiesNot approved for this use
Full profile

HDAP2

A short mitochondria-targeted research peptide that binds cardiolipin. Evidence is cell and mouse work, including 2026 optic-nerve injury data.

L2Animal / lab studiesResearch / unapproved supply
Full profile

How far human research has progressed

Orexin A

Small human research studies (narcolepsy), not a development programme

HDAP2

Preclinical — cell studies and mouse retinal and optic-nerve models

Claim-specific benefit evidence

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

Orexin A

Not separately assessed; see the full profile.

HDAP2

Not separately assessed; see the full profile.

Human research context

Orexin A

Small human research studies (narcolepsy), not a development programme

HDAP2

Preclinical — cell studies and mouse retinal and optic-nerve models

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.

Orexin A

Strength of the human efficacy evidence10 of 100 evidence strength

HDAP2

Strength of the human efficacy evidence0 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.

Orexin A

Strength of the animal and lab evidence55 of 100 evidence strength

HDAP2

Strength of the animal and lab evidence35 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.

Orexin A

Strength of the human safety evidence6 of 100 evidence strength

HDAP2

Strength of the human safety evidence3 of 100 evidence strength

Regulatory status (legal position, not proof it works)

Orexin A

Check jurisdiction-specific details in the profile.

Orexin A itself is not an approved medicine. Approved drugs that act on the orexin system (for example the insomnia medicines suvorexant, lemborexant and daridorexant) are small-molecule receptor BLOCKERS — the opposite action — and their approvals say nothing about orexin A peptide products.

HDAP2

Check jurisdiction-specific details in the profile.

Not an approved medicine and not in human trials in our curated record. It is an academic research peptide supported by published work and NIH-funded projects.

Common claims

Orexin A

  • · Wakefulness and focus
  • · Narcolepsy treatment
  • · Appetite or metabolism effects

HDAP2

  • · Neuroprotection and vision preservation
  • · Mitochondrial membrane repair
  • · Protection against nerve injury

How settled our evidence rating is

Orexin A

Low confidence in ratingL2Animal / lab studies

HDAP2

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.

Orexin A

Not established. No specific signal identified in the curated record.

HDAP2

Not established. No human data exist in either direction.

What this adds up to, in plain English

Orexin A

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

HDAP2

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.