Peptide tools.
Reference tools for the questions that sit either side of the vial math: what a regulator has actually decided, how long a compound is published to hang around, what it costs once you normalise the price, and what a real label says about storing it. Sourced where sources exist, and blank where they do not.
Every tracked compound in one sortable table: FDA-approved, investigational, or research-use-only, with the real approved product and indication named in every row.
Open toolPublished human elimination half-lives with a source link on every single row. Compounds with no reliable published human pharmacokinetics are listed as exactly that, not filled in.
Open toolSingle-compartment decay on your own numbers. Enter or pre-fill a half-life, a starting amount and a time elapsed, and see remaining, cleared, and time to 95% and 99%.
Open toolVial prices are not comparable because vials are not the same size. Normalise any price to cost per mg, per 100 mcg, per administration, and a weekly and monthly run rate.
Open toolReal storage temperatures and in-use windows straight off current FDA labels, with the label linked per row, plus an honest account of why research peptides have no equivalent table.
Open toolDoing the vial math instead?.
The calculators handle the arithmetic that happens with a vial and a syringe in front of you: concentration, units, blends, pen mechanics and unit conversion. Same rules apply there. Your numbers in, arithmetic out, no amount ever suggested.
The most requested peptide tool on the internet is an interaction checker: pick two compounds, get a verdict. We are not going to build one, and it is worth saying why out loud.
A real drug interaction checker rests on pharmacokinetic studies, enzyme inhibition data, case reports and post-marketing surveillance. For nearly every pairing of research peptides, none of that exists. Any grid we shipped would be filled in by guessing from mechanism, and it would look authoritative precisely where it was weakest. A green square that means nobody has ever studied this is worse than no square at all, so the honest answer is the absence of the tool.
FAQ.
Do any of these tools tell me what to take?
No, and that is a design decision rather than an oversight. The calculators transform numbers you type and nothing else: no amount is suggested, defaulted, or recommended anywhere on this site. The reference tables reproduce regulatory facts and published values with their sources attached. What to take, whether to take it, and when are questions for a licensed prescriber.
Is there an interaction checker?
No, deliberately. A pairwise interaction checker for research peptides would have to invent almost all of its verdicts, because the studies that would ground them have not been done. Shipping a confident-looking grid of green and red squares built on nothing would be the most dangerous thing on this site, so it is the one tool we will not build.
Why are some cells in the tables empty?
Because the data does not exist, and a blank says so. Most research peptides have no published human pharmacokinetics and no published stability programme. Where we could not find and verify a real published value we leave the cell empty and say why, rather than repeating a number that has been copied between websites until it started to look like a fact.
What is the difference between the tools and the calculators?
The calculators are measurement math for people who already have a vial in front of them: reconstitution, syringe units, blends, pen mechanics, unit conversion. The tools answer the questions that come before and after that, which are what a compound's regulatory status is, how long it stays in the body, what it costs per milligram, and how it should be stored.
Do these cost anything or need an account?
No. Every tool runs in your browser, nothing is sent to a server, and there is no sign-up, no paywall and no affiliate link anywhere in them.