Vendor: Ascension Peptides
Official domain: ascensionpeptides.com
Review date: 28 September 2026
Scope: Review of supplied records and saved public-facing materials; Peptidero has not independently tested the products.
Verdict at a glance
Ascension Peptides provides substantial public testing documentation, but the records require careful batch-by-batch reading. The supplied research catalogues 41 products and 107 COA records attributed to two laboratories. Named labs, downloadable certificates, chromatograms and measured content are concrete strengths; newer reports also cover endotoxin, metals and a rapid sterility screen.
The most important unresolved issue is a specific HCG certificate: the vendor copy reports 99.15% purity, while saved screenshots of the corresponding laboratory record show 94.75%. Historical lot-number inconsistencies also need explanation. These findings limit confidence in document matching, without establishing the quality of other products or the cause of the discrepancy. Overall, the documentation is substantial but partly unresolved; customer-service evidence is too limited for a confident assessment.
Company overview
Ascension Peptides sells research-use products through ascensionpeptides.com. Its captured catalogue includes BPC-157, GHK-Cu, other individual peptides, blends, NAD+, 5-Amino-1MQ and HCG. Some products use short names: R-10/R-30 correspond to retatrutide and T-10/T-30 to tirzepatide in the supplied product records.
The company lists a Kansas City, Missouri mailing address, sales@ascensionpeptides.com, a telephone number and a contact form. Support hours are stated as Monday–Friday, 9am–5pm CST. The reviewed contact and policy pages do not establish a registered legal entity or owner. They should not be treated as confirmation of a manufacturing location. Its terms restrict products to research and development and exclude human consumption.
What the company appears to do well
The accessible COA library gives readers more to examine than a general testing promise. The research associates certificates with every captured catalogue product, although that does not establish coverage of every lot sold. Many documents identify the client, compound, batch, dates, analytical method and results.
Newer documentation also includes component amounts for blends. Kovera’s KLOW report for batch 46-05260628, certified 3 July 2026, lists GHK-Cu, KPV, BPC-157 and TB-500 separately, with measured amounts of 51.31, 11.48, 11.61 and 10.51 mg respectively. This is more informative than a total alone. Its reported blend-average purity does not establish each component’s individual purity.
Contact channels and detailed shipping and return pages are readily identifiable in the saved materials. That helps readers understand the stated transaction terms, even where pages differ.
Documentation and testing review
Kovera’s BPC-157 report KVR-2026-8646D1, certified 10 July 2026, identifies batch 12-05260628 and a 10 mg label. It reports 99.441% purity, 11.16 mg content and LC-MS identity confirmation. The chromatogram specifies RP-HPLC with a C18 column and detection at 214 nm; the certificate does not specify the content-measurement method. Separate pages report endotoxin below 0.20 EU/mL and an ICP-MS panel for lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury.
These additional tests have limits. The two-day sterility screen explicitly describes a preliminary assessment; no final compendial sterility result was located. Its received and certified dates are identical despite the stated incubation period. The endotoxin document describes a chromogenic assay but lists turbidimetric methodology. These inconsistencies warrant laboratory clarification. Residual-solvent and separate bioburden results were not located in the reviewed archive.
Purity and quantity must also remain separate. MZ Biolabs’ NAD+ report for lot 25-01260229, analysed 26 January 2026 and dated 3 February, reports 99.66% purity but 784.32 mg per vial against a 1,000 mg label. That is a result for this historical sample; it does not establish the content of a later lot.
For HCG lot 39-01260229, the vendor PDF and saved MZ portal screenshots give different purity results: 99.15% versus 94.75%. Both identify analysis on 10 February 2026 using HPLC-UV. No explanation or corrective correspondence was supplied. Two older KPV PDFs show the same analysis and results under lot 2025-06-10 and batch 20-03250428. Neither conflict should be resolved by assuming intent.
The folder’s 100-point rubric assesses eleven documentation categories, including test coverage, traceability and sample provenance. Recalculating its assigned category points gives Kovera records 63–66 points, grade C, and MZ records 12–52, grades E–D. These describe the supplied scoring of reports, not vendor quality or safety. The materials do not document independently purchased samples or supply accreditation certificates and scopes supporting the vendor’s accreditation claim.
Customer experience and business practices
The supplied research log records that Trustpilot displayed a removed-profile. A usable customer-review sample and the underlying page capture were not supplied, so this review cannot establish a review count, service trend or reason for removal. It provides no chemical-quality finding. [8]
The homepage states US-only shipping. The FAQ describes $15 UPS delivery taking 5–7 business days; the shipping policy describes UPS or USPS and 2–5 days. The return policy generally excludes returns, allows replacements for incorrect orders and requires damaged-item notification within 24 hours. The FAQ instead offers replacement or refund within 48 hours. Route protection is offered. These are company-stated policies, not demonstrated service performance; the different deadlines merit clarification.
Buyer considerations
- Match the proposed lot to the actual report. Historical HCG and KPV conflicts make the document itself, and any available lab copy, more useful than the library headline. The explanation remains unresolved.
- Check the tests relevant to that lot. Newer reports offer broader coverage, but a rapid screen, purity result and content measurement answer different questions.
- Clarify the contracting entity and applicable delivery and problem-resolution terms. The saved pages provide contact options but leave entity identity and some policy details uncertain.
Peptidero verdict
Ascension Peptides’ documentation offers useful detail for readers comparing research vendors: named laboratories, batch-linked certificates, measured quantities and newer contaminant-screening records. Those strengths deserve recognition. The archive nevertheless contains a direct HCG purity discrepancy and historical lot-matching questions that prevent an unqualified documentation verdict.
Readers comparing a particular product should establish the current lot, obtain its complete report, compare any laboratory-hosted record and seek explanations for conflicting details. They should also clarify the business entity and applicable service terms. The evidence supports a substantial but partly unresolved documentation record, with limited evidence about customer experience. It does not support a blanket judgment about all stock, sterility, human-use suitability or effectiveness. Peptidero’s conclusion concerns the records reviewed, not a certification or purchase recommendation.