PeptidesRx prices more of the compounds compared here than any other seller on this site, and it names the pharmacy that fills the orders with an address and a telephone number. It also runs two catalogues on one domain whose figures disagree on every compound they share, and gives two coverage numbers in a single paragraph that cannot both be right.
What PeptidesRx charges
Sermorelin: $208 — "Sermorelin / Injection or oral. Anti-aging, lean muscle, recovery and sleep. / from $208 per vial / 3 and 6 month pricing available / One vial typically lasts four to six weeks". ⛔ The seller’s other live catalogue prices the same compound at "$ 176.00" at https://peptidesinc.com/product/sermorelin/
NAD+: $296 — "NAD+ / Energy that lasts past three in the afternoon / from $296 per vial / $802 for 3 months · $1,462 for 6 months / One vial typically lasts four to six weeks". ⛔ The WooCommerce catalogue prices NAD+ at "$ 189.00" at https://peptidesinc.com/product/nad/
Glutathione: $208 — "Glutathione / Injection or nasal spray. Detox, glow and immune support. / from $208 per vial / 3 and 6 month pricing available". ⛔ THREE FIGURES EXIST FOR THIS ONE COMPOUND: the WooCommerce page prints "$ 156.00" (/product/glutathione/) and the marketing landing page prints "Glutathione Injection $175" (/glutathione-injection/)
GHK-Cu: $307 — "GHK-Cu / Firmer skin, thicker hair, faster healing / $307 per vial / $782 for 3 months / 50 mg". ⛔ The WooCommerce catalogue prices it at "$ 279.00" at https://peptidesinc.com/product/ghk-cu-injectable/
CJC-1295: $329 — "CJC-1295 / Ipamorelin / Lean muscle, recovery and anti-aging / $329 per vial / $954 for 3 months / 6 mg CJC-1295 with 10 mg Ipamorelin". ⛔ Sold only as a two-compound vial, never separately; the WooCommerce catalogue prices the same vial at "$ 299.00"
Epitalon: $329 — "Epithalon / Clarity, longevity and anti-aging / $329 per vial / $838 for 3 months / 10 mg". ⛔ The seller spells it Epithalon; the WooCommerce catalogue prices it at "$ 299.00" at https://peptidesinc.com/product/epithalon/
MOTS-C: $340 — "MOTS-C / Metabolism, energy and performance / $340 per vial / $867 for 3 months / 10 mg". The same catalogue also sells a combined vial: "MOTS-C / Tesamorelin ... $340 per vial ... 10 mg MOTS-C with 15 mg Tesamorelin"
Tesamorelin: $259 — the WooCommerce product page prints "$ 259.00" with no billing period stated. ⛔ The seller’s other catalogue sells tesamorelin ONLY inside a combined vial — "MOTS-C / Tesamorelin ... $340 per vial ... 10 mg MOTS-C with 15 mg Tesamorelin" — so the two catalogues do not even sell the same product
PT-141: $318 — "PT-141 / Bremelanotide. Injection or nasal spray. / from $318 per vial / $811 for 3 months". ⛔ The WooCommerce catalogue prices it at "$ 289.00" at https://peptidesinc.com/product/pt-141/
Semax: $219 — "Semax / Injection or nasal spray, for focus and drive / $219 per vial / Cognitive health, focus, drive / One vial typically lasts four to six weeks". No WooCommerce product page exists for this compound, so no second figure competes with it
PeptidesRx is not a paid partner; this link may earn a commission if that changes. Full disclosure.
By Nora Castellan, Standards EditorUpdated September 2026
One seller, two catalogues, two sets of prices
A newer catalogue page prices each compound per vial and states the vial strength and how long a vial typically lasts.
A storefront catalogue on the same domain prices the same compounds through product pages with add-to-cart controls, and every shared compound is cheaper there.
Both are live today, both are linked from the site's own navigation, and neither shows a struck-through or expired figure.
Each row here cites the page its figure came from and carries the other page's figure in its qualifier, because reconciling them would invent a price neither page publishes.
A comparison figure that renders on every product page
Each product page carries a block comparing an infusion clinic against buying from this seller, with a figure on each side.
The figure on the seller's side is identical on every product page read, including pages whose actual price is much lower.
It is boilerplate that was never updated per product, and none of it is stored.
One marketing page for a single compound also carries a header figure that matches neither catalogue, which is a third number for that one compound.
The pharmacy is named and the coverage numbers contradict each other
The questions page names the dispensing pharmacy outright, with its street address, city and telephone number, which clears the pharmacy flag cleanly.
The same paragraph says the pharmacy is licensed in a stated number of states and then lists the states it is not licensed in.
Those two facts do not agree: the count of exclusions implies a smaller total than the number given a sentence earlier.
Because the seller's own two numbers conflict, this row stores no coverage list at all, and the contradiction is recorded rather than resolved.
Whose licence, and what the order includes
Both coverage numbers describe the pharmacy's licensure rather than the company's service area, which are not the same claim.
The product pages say separately that certain orders are available only in state-permitted locations, which is a further qualification on both.
A quality panel on every product page describes independent verification in registered laboratories. That is potency testing of the product, not lab work for the patient.
What the order actually includes is stated as the telehealth visit and shipping, so the lab flag is false.
Who it's for
Readers buying several different compounds from a single seller.
Buyers who want the dispensing pharmacy named with an address they can check.
Shoppers who want the vial strength and expected duration stated beside a figure.
Anyone who wants a seller to publish which states its pharmacy is not licensed in.
Who should look elsewhere
Readers who want one price per compound rather than two.
Buyers who need a coverage answer the seller states consistently.
Anyone who wants lab work included in what they pay.
Shoppers who would take the first figure they see on a product page at face value.
Strengths
Prices ten of the compounds compared here, more than any other seller on this roster
Names its dispensing pharmacy, its street address and its telephone number
States the vial strength and the expected duration of a vial beside most figures
Publishes the states its pharmacy is not licensed in rather than only the count
Trade-offs
Runs two live catalogues whose figures disagree on every compound they share
Prints a third, templated figure on every product page that belongs to no product
Gives two coverage numbers in one paragraph that cannot both be right
Prices a third figure for one compound on a marketing page separate from both catalogues
How we verified this
Read both of this seller's catalogues in full and recorded the figure each publishes for every shared compound.
Confirmed both catalogues are live, reachable from the site's own navigation, and free of struck-through or expired styling before recording the conflict rather than picking a winner.
Cited on each row the page its figure was read from, and kept the competing figure and its address in the qualifier.
Identified the on-page comparison figure as boilerplate by finding it rendered identically across products with different prices, and stored none of it.
Found a third figure for one compound on a separate marketing page and recorded that too.
Read the questions page for the dispensing pharmacy and recorded the named facility, its address and its telephone number.
Read the two coverage statements in that same paragraph and confirmed by counting the listed exclusions that they cannot both be true.
Recorded no coverage list, because both statements describe the pharmacy's licensure rather than the company's service area and they disagree with each other.
Distinguished the product-potency laboratory panel from patient lab work and checked what the order is said to include.
Screened this seller in the live federal warning-letter record by brand and by the domain's own wording, with a known-good positive control and a nonsense negative control in the same run, and read the company column of every returned record rather than accepting a full-text match.
A provider to compare PeptidesRx against
Trellis Vitality
Trellis Vitality frames its program around body-composition tracking rather than scale weight, pairing NAD+, glutathione and tesamorelin with at-home biomarker panels and a 90-day re-test, and names its dispensing pharmacy, VialsRX in Houston, by address.
Why are there two different prices for the same compound?
The seller runs two catalogues on one domain and both are live. Neither is marked as expired, so both are recorded and neither is reconciled into the other.
Is the figure in the comparison block on each product page a price?
No. It is boilerplate that renders identically on products with different prices.
Which pharmacy fills the order?
One is named, with a street address and a telephone number, on the questions page.
Which states does it serve?
The seller gives a licensed-state count and a list of unlicensed states in one paragraph, and the two do not agree. Both describe the pharmacy's licence rather than the company's service area, so no list is stored.
Is lab work included?
No. The laboratory panel on the product pages describes potency testing of the product. The order is said to include the telehealth visit and shipping.
PeptidesRx is not a paid partner; this link may earn a commission if that changes. Full disclosure.