Testing, Your Way

There is a simple question at the heart of Finnrick:

If people are going to make their own health decisions, what information do they need to make those decisions carefully?

Not slogans. Not vendor claims. Not influencer lore. Measurement.

For over a year, Finnrick has tested thousands of peptide samples to make this market safer. We have published evidence of strong products, weak products, inconsistent products, vendor corrections, lab corrections, and a few uncomfortable truths people did not necessarily want to hear.

We have also learned something important.

Everyone draws the line differently.

One person will not touch anything under 99.5% purity. Another wants the strictest possible purity standard. One buyer cares most about whether the vial contains the expected compound. Another cares about fill accuracy. Another wants batch labeling strong enough to connect the vial in their hand to the claims made about it.

That is not irrational. That is risk tolerance.

Our old system did not handle that well enough.

So we changed it.

No more letter ratings

Finnrick no longer issues letter-based ratings for vendor/product pairs.

The old system tried to compress a lot of evidence into a familiar format: A, B, C, D, E. It was easy to understand, but it carried a problem. A letter grade looks objective in a way that can hide the judgment calls underneath.

What purity threshold should count as acceptable? How far from the claimed quantity is too far? Should batch information matter? Should website-only batch claims be treated the same as information printed on the vial? Should one recent good test outweigh an older failure? Should one lucky result make a vendor look safe?

There is no single answer to those questions that satisfies everyone, because the answer depends on what you care about.

So we are moving away from the fiction that one universal letter grade can settle the matter.

No more test scores

We have also removed individual Finnrick test scores.

The old 0–10 scale had a certain appeal. It looked precise. It let us say a sample scored 7.3 out of 10.

But that precision could be misleading.

A vial is not “7.3 points safe.”

A score made it too easy to treat identity, purity, quantity, and labeling as ingredients in a single blended number. In practice, people do not reason that way. If the expected substance is not present, a little extra label quality does not make the vial acceptable. If purity is below your threshold, you do not need a decimal score to tell you whether it cleared your standard.

The question is simpler:

Did this sample meet the selected standard?

The new number: a percentage

Finnrick now summarizes vendor and product evidence as a percentage.

That percentage represents how consistently recent, classifiable samples have met the selected Finnrick standard for identity, purity, fill accuracy, and, in standard modes, batch labeling quality.

It is not a vibe. It is not a brand reputation score. It is not a popularity contest.

It is a compact summary of published test evidence.

A sample is first classified under the selected standard. It either passes, fails, or is incomplete for that standard. Incomplete tests remain visible in the test history, but they do not count toward that standard’s rating.

Then recent evidence is weighted more heavily than older evidence. Current data should matter more than stale data, especially in a market where vendors, suppliers, batches, and manufacturing practices can change.

Finally, thin histories are handled carefully. If a vendor has only a small number of classifiable tests for a peptide, the final rating is pulled toward the peer baseline for that peptide. That prevents one lucky or unlucky test from looking more certain than it really is.

As more recent classifiable tests accumulate, the final rating moves closer to the vendor’s natural rating.

That is the core idea.

Not “what letter did Finnrick give this vendor?”

How often, under this standard, has the evidence been acceptable?

You can read the full methodology here: Finnrick methodology.

Pass, fail, or incomplete

Under the new system, every sample is evaluated against a ruleset.

A ruleset is a set of thresholds for what counts as acceptable.

The public Finnrick Standard requires the expected identity, at least 99.5% purity, fill accuracy within plus or minus 25% of claim, and a labeling score of at least 0.5.

The public Purity Focus mode also requires at least 99.5% purity, but allows a wider plus or minus 35% quantity range and does not apply batch labeling requirements.

Members also get stricter standards: Purity Focus Strict, which raises the purity threshold to 99.8%, and Finnrick Super Strict, which requires at least 99.8% purity, fill accuracy within plus or minus 15%, and the strongest labeling score.

The test data does not change.

The standard changes.

That distinction matters.

Your standards may be stricter than ours

Our default methodology is our opinion.

It is informed by lab data, experience, and the practical realities of reviewing thousands of samples. But it is still an opinion.

That matters.

Finnrick has always believed in your right to choose. That includes your right to decide what level of risk is acceptable to you. We can publish the evidence. We can define our methodology. We can show the consequences of different thresholds. But we should not pretend that everyone has the same use case, the same budget, the same body, the same research background, or the same appetite for risk.

So the new Finnrick site supports different standards.

If you care most about purity, you can use a purity-focused view. If you want the default Finnrick Standard, it is there. If you want to go harder, the strict modes are there too.

The public data remains the foundation.

The interpretation becomes more personal.

That is the point.

The standards, thresholds, exclusions, and weighting rules are documented in the methodology, so you can see exactly how the number is produced.

Batch labeling matters, but not always in the same way

One of the lessons from the last year is that test results are only as useful as their connection to a real product.

A purity number is stronger when it can be tied to a specific batch. A batch claim is stronger when it travels with the vial. Information printed directly on the container is stronger than a website-only claim that can disappear, move, or become separated from the product after purchase.

That is why Finnrick scores labeling quality.

The labeling score does not measure how pretty the label is. It measures whether the sample can be tied back to a batch, and whether batch-specific claims are communicated in a durable, product-adjacent way.

For Finnrick Standard, some usable batch labeling is required. For Finnrick Super Strict, the requirement is much higher. For purity-focused modes, batch labeling does not affect the rating.

Again: different standards for different priorities.

Prices are now visible too

Quality is only half the story.

The other half is what you are being asked to pay for it.

Peptide markets are opaque, and opacity is expensive. When buyers cannot see what is actually in the vial, price becomes a proxy for trust. Expensive feels safer. Premium branding feels like quality. A polished website feels like a supply chain.

Sometimes that may be true.

Often, it is not.

That is why the new Finnrick site shows prices where we have them. Not because price is everything, but because price without quality data is how people get fooled.

Our first research article asks a deliberately uncomfortable question: what does a higher Retatrutide price actually buy?

The early answer is not flattering to the market.

In the dataset we analyzed, the combined purity-dose frontier topped out at $1.05 per mg. Beyond that, additional spend did not produce better measured chemical quality.

That does not mean the cheapest product is always best. It does not mean every expensive vendor is bad. It means the premium story needs evidence.

If a vendor charges more, the data should show what the buyer gets for that money.

If it does not, that is worth knowing.

You can read the underlying analysis on our research page.

Vendor reports: beyond the leaderboard

Test results are the foundation. But they are not the whole picture.

A vendor is not just a row in a leaderboard. It is a business, or sometimes several businesses, with corporate records, affiliate relationships, product history, pricing patterns, batch practices, correction history, and a lab-testing record that may improve, deteriorate, or fragment across products.

So we are now producing in-depth vendor intelligence reports.

These reports are designed to answer the questions that do not fit neatly into a table.

Who appears to be behind the vendor? How does the vendor perform across products? Are failures isolated or repeated? Are there signs of meaningful quality control? Does the pricing make sense against the measured results? Are there connected brands, affiliate networks, or corporate structures buyers should understand?

You can read the first pages of every report for free.

With a free Finnrick account, you can download one complete vendor report and keep it.

With a paid membership, you can download more reports, access original lab COAs, and use the strictest rating modes.

You can see the available plans here: Finnrick subscriptions.

Subscriptions help fund more independent testing, which keeps the public leaderboards available to everyone.

That is the model: public data first, deeper tools for people who want more, and more testing funded by the people who find the work useful.

What changed, and what did not

We changed the interface.

We changed the methodology.

We changed how we summarize risk.

We removed letter ratings. We removed 0–10 test scores. We added percentage-based rankings, selectable standards, price visibility, research, and vendor intelligence reports.

But the core principle did not change.

Finnrick exists because people are already making decisions in a market where too much is hidden. We do not think the answer is to scold people, gatekeep information, or pretend the market disappears if nobody looks at it.

We think the answer is measurement.

Public measurement.

Independent measurement.

Measurement that can be argued with, improved, reinterpreted, and checked against the original evidence.

The data stays visible. The standards stay explicit. The interpretation becomes more personal.

That is where Finnrick is going.

Not one letter grade for everyone.

Not one risk tolerance for everyone.

Not one official answer handed down from above.

Just better evidence, clearer tools, and a market with fewer places to hide.

Testing, your way.