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.

PEG-MGF

A muscle-repair peptide with a compelling mechanism story and no robust human outcome evidence.

L2Animal / lab studiesNot approved for this use
Full profile

CJC-1295

A long-acting GHRH analogue abandoned after early human studies — it reliably raises growth hormone, but the outcomes it is sold for were never tested.

L3Early human studiesResearch / unapproved supply
Full profile

How far human research has progressed

PEG-MGF

No robust human trial evidence identified in our curated record

CJC-1295

Early human pharmacology studies only; development discontinued

Claim-specific benefit evidence

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

PEG-MGF

Not separately assessed; see the full profile.

CJC-1295

Not separately assessed; see the full profile.

Human research context

PEG-MGF

No robust human trial evidence identified in our curated record

CJC-1295

Early human pharmacology studies only; development discontinued

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.

PEG-MGF

Strength of the human efficacy evidence6 of 100 evidence strength

CJC-1295

Strength of the human efficacy evidence28 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.

PEG-MGF

Strength of the animal and lab evidence42 of 100 evidence strength

CJC-1295

Strength of the animal and lab evidence55 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.

PEG-MGF

Strength of the human safety evidence6 of 100 evidence strength

CJC-1295

Strength of the human safety evidence22 of 100 evidence strength

Regulatory status (legal position, not proof it works)

PEG-MGF

Check jurisdiction-specific details in the profile.

Not an approved medicine anywhere. Sold as a research chemical, widely discussed in performance and bodybuilding communities, and prohibited in sport. A 2026 peer-reviewed review documents it among substances being self-administered outside medical supervision.

CJC-1295

Check jurisdiction-specific details in the profile.

Not an approved medicine. Development did not continue to approval. Prohibited in sport.

Common claims

PEG-MGF

  • · Activates muscle stem cells for faster growth
  • · Speeds recovery from training and injury
  • · Localised muscle growth where injected

CJC-1295

  • · Builds muscle
  • · Burns fat
  • · Improves sleep and recovery
  • · Reverses ageing

How settled our evidence rating is

PEG-MGF

Very low confidence in ratingL2Animal / lab studies

CJC-1295

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.

PEG-MGF

IGF-1 pathway signalling is mechanistically linked to cell proliferation, so a theoretical concern exists. No human data establish or exclude a risk for this peptide.

CJC-1295

Same IGF-1 proliferation logic as other growth-hormone-axis compounds: mechanistically plausible concern, no human outcome data. Chronic elevation without monitoring is the specific worry, not a proven cancer link.

What this adds up to, in plain English

PEG-MGF

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

CJC-1295

Preliminary human observations exist, but they may not establish a treatment-attributable benefit.

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.