Choose any two compounds below to see them side by side. Each comparison page lines up the level of evidence behind each one, the registered clinical trials, and where each stands with regulators, so the differences are easy to see in one place.
This is a side-by-side of what is documented, not a ranking. Different compounds are studied for different things, in different people, at different amounts. A row that looks stronger for one compound does not make it the better choice for anyone.
| BPC-157 | GHK-Cu | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest evidence tier on the page | E4 Preclinical only Animal or in vitro work. Not demonstrated in humans. | E2 Human clinical evidence Registered or peer-reviewed human trial with reported results. |
| Regulatory status | Not approved for human use | Not an approved drug; cleared for cosmetic use at industry concentrations |
| Research area | Tissue repair and recovery | Tissue repair and recovery |
| Regulator-approved dose on file | No approved dose | No approved dose |
| Molecular formula | C62H98N16O22 | C14H22CuN6O4 (neutral 1:1 complex); C14H24N6O4 for free GHK |
| Molar mass | 1419.5 g/mol | About 401.9 g/mol for the 1:1 complex; 340.38 g/mol for free GHK |
| CAS number | 137525-51-0 | 89030-95-5 (complex); 49557-75-7 (free GHK) |
| Registered trials on this site | None linked yet | None linked yet |
| Published trials covered on its page | 5 | 3 |
| Amounts studied in those trials | Veljaca 2002 and 2003: Up to 2 mg/kg once daily, rectal enema for 8 days Ruenzi 2005: 80 mg once daily, rectal enema, against placebo for 2 weeks Lee 2021 chart review: 2 to 4 mg intra-articular injection, one or two doses for One or two injections, no set course As reported on the compound page. Amounts are not comparable between compounds. | Bishop 1992: Topical tripeptide-copper complex 0.4 percent cream, against 1 percent silver sulfadiazine cream and against an inert vehicle Miller 2006: Topical copper tripeptide complex added to a post-procedure skin care regimen; concentration not disclosed for 12 weeks Kapoor 2018: Intradermal scalp injection of a six component formulation in which copper tripeptide-1 was one active; no amount of copper tripeptide-1 is stated for 8 sessions at 3 week intervals As reported on the compound page. Amounts are not comparable between compounds. |
| What is not known | What BPC-157 binds to. No receptor has been identified, no binding affinity measured, and no knockout or knockdown experiment has shown a required target, after roughly 230 papers. Whether it reaches the circulation in a human being. The only human measurement by any route found... | Whether the peptide is necessary or is simply carrying copper. The evidence contradicts itself in both directions and the one study that would settle it has not been followed up in fourteen years. Whether administered GHK-Cu survives intact in plasma, or immediately hands its copper... |
Full pages: BPC-157 and GHK-Cu. See also the clinical trial tracker and how we grade evidence.
Educational reference, not medical advice. Trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov. Everything else is drawn from the compound pages on this site, each of which cites its sources.
Most requested comparisons
These are the pairings readers look for most often. Each opens a full side-by-side page.
Weight management compounds
- Retatrutide vs Tirzepatide
- Semaglutide vs Tirzepatide
- Retatrutide vs Semaglutide
- Retatrutide vs Survodutide
- Cagrilintide vs Semaglutide
- Orforglipron vs Semaglutide
- Mazdutide vs Tirzepatide
- Cagrilintide vs Eloralintide
- LY4086940 vs Retatrutide
- LY4086940 vs Orforglipron
Growth hormone related peptides
- Ipamorelin vs Sermorelin
- Sermorelin vs Tesamorelin
- CJC-1295 (no DAC) vs Ipamorelin
- CJC-1295 with DAC vs Ipamorelin
Repair and recovery
Longevity, mitochondria and brain
How to read a comparison
A side-by-side table can make two compounds look equally proven when they are not. Keep these points in mind as you read.
- Evidence level matters more than the headline. Every compound is placed on the same six-tier scale, from published human clinical trials down to community reports. A compound with large human trials and one with only animal studies are not comparable, even when both appear in the same table.
- Registered trials show what is being tested. A trial listed on ClinicalTrials.gov tells you a question is being studied, not that the answer is known. Check the status and phase. You can browse every tracked study on the clinical trial tracker and see recent registry updates in the trial changes feed.
- Regulatory status is specific to a formulation and a country. Approval of one product does not mean every version of that compound is approved.
- Different populations and doses limit direct comparison. Results from separate trials, run in different people over different periods, cannot be lined up as if they came from a head-to-head study unless a comparison page says a head-to-head study exists.
Frequently asked questions
Which compound is better?
These pages do not rank compounds or tell anyone what to use. They show what the published and registered evidence says about each one so you can see where the evidence is strong and where it is thin.
Why are some comparisons mostly empty on one side?
Many popular peptides have little or no human trial data. When that is the case, the comparison says so plainly rather than filling the gap with community claims.
Can I compare doses here?
Reported amounts are documented on each individual peptide page, with the source and evidence tier for every figure. If you need to work out concentrations, the reconstitution calculator is a math tool only and does not suggest an amount.
Where can I see every compound?
The full peptide library lists every entry,.
PeptideBlog is an educational reference compiled from public sources. It is not medical advice, and nothing here is a recommendation for or against any compound.
