Methodology
This page is the contract behind every number on this site. Scores are computed from documented facts by a fixed rubric. A reader with the same facts gets the same score — including for the vendor that operates this site.
Frozen scoring model
Published rubric
| Dimension | Input | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Documentation | Public per-lot COAs | 3 |
| Documentation | Public COA library | 2 |
| Documentation | COAs on request | 1 |
| Documentation | Claimed only | 0 |
| Documentation | No documentation | 0 |
| Documentation | Unknownunverified | 1.5 |
| Testing | Named third-party lab with verifiable reports | 3 |
| Testing | Third-party testing stated | 2 |
| Testing | In-house testing only | 1 |
| Testing | No testing | 0 |
| Testing | Unknownunverified | 1.5 |
| Payment safety | Card accepted | 3 |
| Payment safety | Crypto without card | 1 |
| Payment safety | P2P-only | 0 |
| Payment safety | Unknownunverified | 1.5 |
| Track record | No adverse documented events | 3 |
| Track record | BBB complaint cluster | 2 |
| Track record | Agency warning letter | 1 |
| Track record | Conviction or enforcement | 0 |
sum of dimension points / 12 × 10
Evidence levels
Every claim we publish carries its source type, and the wording follows the source. A court conviction can be stated in the court's own language, tied to the person named in the record. An FDA warning letter is described as alleging violations — it is not a finding of guilt. A vendor's own notice is attributed to the vendor. A press report renders as reported, attributed to the outlet, and never stated as established fact.
Facts we could only find on third-party review sites — not on the vendor's own pages or in an official record — are recorded as unverified and score as unknown, not as confirmed.
- agency-warning
- FDA warning letter alleging violations; it is not a finding of guilt.
- court-conviction
- Plea or sentencing documented in a DOJ or court record and tied to the named person.
- court-filing
- A charge or filed court matter that has not been resolved.
- vendor-stated
- A notice or statement published by the vendor itself.
- bbb-complaints
- A complaint pattern documented by the Better Business Bureau.
- news-report
- Outlet-attributed reporting that must render as reported, not established fact.
- observation
- Our own dated crawl observation, such as a dead domain or catalog change.
How unknowns score
A fact we could not verify scores the midpoint of its dimension and flags the vendor's score with an unverified marker. Absence of evidence is not treated as failure, and it is never hidden.
Ranking rules
Active vendors are ranked by total score. Equal totals share a rank. Defunct vendors are not scored or ranked; their records remain published.
Re-verification
The full roster is re-verified quarterly: live domain, operating status, and any new regulatory record. Every vendor page shows its last-verified date. Status changes land in the changelog with dates.
Corrections
If we published something wrong, we want to fix it. Send the claim and the evidence through the operator's contact channel at curo.you. Documented errors are corrected promptly and logged in the changelog.
Why we do not link vendors
Vendor domains on this site are written as plain text, not links. We link only primary sources — FDA, DOJ, and archived records — and the operator's own site. This keeps us from sending traffic to sites with adverse records and keeps clone domains from benefiting from a dead brand's name.
Ownership
Peptide Source Tracker is owned and operated by Curo, a research-peptide vendor. Curo appears in the comparison and is scored by the same rubric as everyone else, from the same categories of documented facts. Its rank is reproducible from this page and the facts on its review. We publish this site because the vendor data we needed did not exist in one checkable place.
This site is independent of, and not affiliated with, any other vendor named on it.