Compare
Two compounds,
one honest table.
Side-by-side comparisons built from the same structured evidence as the compound profiles — so you can weigh regulatory status, human evidence, and safety without losing the context that makes the numbers mean something.
Semaglutide vs Tirzepatide
In head-to-head diabetes trials and cross-trial obesity data, tirzepatide produces larger average weight loss and HbA1c reduction. Semaglutide has the more mature cardiovascular-outcomes evidence in people without diabetes. Both are FDA-approved and share the GLP-1 class safety profile.
See the comparison →PeptidesBPC-157 vs TB-500
Both are research chemicals with tissue-repair claims resting almost entirely on animal data and essentially no controlled human trials. Neither is approved for human use, and both are prohibited in sport. The honest comparison is not "which works better" but "both are unproven in humans, in different ways."
See the comparison →PeptidesCJC-1295 vs Ipamorelin
These are the two halves of the most common growth-hormone "stack," and they work by different but complementary mechanisms — CJC-1295 on the GHRH receptor, ipamorelin on the ghrelin receptor. Both raise growth hormone, which is a biomarker effect, and neither has any controlled human trial showing the fat-loss, muscle, or anti-aging outcomes they are marketed for. Both are unapproved research chemicals, both are prohibited in sport, and the stack itself has never been studied for safety or efficacy. The honest comparison is not "which is better" but "both are unproven in humans."
See the comparison →PeptidesCJC-1295 vs Sermorelin
Both are GHRH analogs that act on the same pituitary receptor, and both raise or stimulate growth hormone — a biomarker effect, not a proven clinical outcome. The popular adult "anti-aging" and body-composition claims are unsupported for both. Sermorelin has the better-validated biomarker effect and a genuine (historical, pediatric) approval behind it, while CJC-1295 is a never-approved research chemical. But for the uses people actually buy them for, both are unproven in humans — and neither is an approved therapeutic today.
See the comparison →PeptidesMK-677 vs Ipamorelin
Both act on the ghrelin receptor to raise growth hormone, but they sit at very different evidence levels. MK-677 is the best-studied compound in this class — oral, and it durably raises GH and IGF-1 across multiple trials — yet those same trials specifically failed to show improved strength, function, or clinical benefit, and it carries real metabolic downsides (worsened glucose, fluid retention). Ipamorelin looks cleaner on paper (selective, injectable) but has far less human data and no proven outcomes. Both raise a biomarker; neither is proven to deliver the body-composition or anti-aging results they are sold for, and neither is approved for human use.
See the comparison →GLP-1 & MetabolicSemaglutide vs Liraglutide
Both are FDA-approved GLP-1 receptor agonists with Grade A cardiovascular evidence, so this is a genuine choice between two proven drugs rather than proven versus unproven. Semaglutide produces markedly greater weight loss (~15% vs ~8%) and dosing is weekly rather than daily; liraglutide is older, dosed daily, more modest on weight, but has a long real-world track record and its own cardiovascular-outcomes proof in diabetes. On magnitude and convenience semaglutide usually wins — but the right fit is a clinical decision.
See the comparison →GLP-1 & MetabolicTirzepatide vs Retatrutide
Tirzepatide is FDA-approved with a large phase-3 evidence base; retatrutide is investigational, and its bigger headline weight-loss figure comes from a single phase-2 trial in a drug that is not approved and has no cardiovascular-outcomes data. For anyone choosing today, tirzepatide is the real option — retatrutide is a promising candidate still being tested, and anything sold under its name outside a trial is an unapproved research chemical.
See the comparison →