Skip to content
Peptideworth

Ranked board

GHK-Cu sellers, and how far the copper peptide evidence goes

GHK-Cu is the rare case on this site where the evidence is genuinely encouraging: small randomised dermatology trials, in humans, measuring the thing the product is sold for. That makes it the clearest test of a seller's discipline, because there is a supportable claim available and most of these companies still make a bigger one.

By Grant Delaney, Research Editor

Disclosure: Some links on this site are affiliate or referral links. If you start a treatment or buy a product through them, we may earn a commission at no additional cost to you. Read our full disclosure.

What gets on this board

Every published review whose dispensed list includes a product we have graded as GHK-Cu, topical or otherwise. Copper-containing cosmetics that do not name GHK-Cu are not on this board.

What decides the order

Ranked by how much of what each company sells is described accurately — the share of the products this board counts whose marketing claim matches the trials behind it. Ties go to the company with more matching claims, then to the one that names its pharmacy, then to the one that publishes a testing regime, and last of all to alphabetical order. Nothing is pinned, sponsored, or lifted into position.

What the grading found

1/4

Claims that match the trials

Across every one of these companies' GHK-Cu products that we have graded.

2/4

Name their pharmacy

A telehealth brand is almost never the pharmacy that fills the order.

0

Publish a readable certificate

Of every company reviewed on this site, not just those on this board.

The ranking

Every product counted here was graded against the published trials for that molecule, using the company's own words about it. The three counts below are that grading, and they are the ranking — there is no score, no weighting and no adjustment behind them.

Only GHK-Cu products are counted here. A company's GLP-1 or NAD+ claims have no effect on where it lands on this board.

CompanyClaims vs. trialsDisclosesVisit
Eden

Checked August 2026

FDA letter — marketing

1/1100%

  • 0 reach past the trials
  • 0 with no trial behind them
Testing shown
Visit
The Edit Health

Checked August 2026

0/10%

  • 1 reach past the trials
  • 0 with no trial behind them
Pharmacy namedTesting shown
Visit
Auren Rx

Checked August 2026

0/10%

  • 1 reach past the trials
  • 0 with no trial behind them
Pharmacy named
Visit
AgelessRx

Checked August 2026

0/10%

  • 1 reach past the trials
  • 0 with no trial behind them
Testing shown
Visit

How a claim is graded, and what moves a compound between evidence tiers, is on our methodology page.

What this board does not measure

Whether it works

A company can describe a weakly-evidenced product accurately and rank well here. What the evidence says about each molecule is on its own graded compound page, and the two questions are deliberately kept apart.

Clinical care

We read public pages. We have not been a patient of any of these companies, have not assessed a consultation, and publish no quality score of any kind.

Price

Prices appear on a review as a note where a company publishes one, and they are not part of this ranking. A cheaper company is not lower here and a dearer one is not higher.

Product quality

Not one company reviewed here publishes a certificate of analysis a customer can read. Until that changes, nothing on this site can tell you what is in a vial.

Frequently asked questions

Why is GHK-Cu not affected by the compounding restriction?

The FDA PCAC list that has emptied this network's BPC-157, TB-500, CJC-1295, ipamorelin, MOTS-c, KPV, epitalon and semax boards does not include GHK-Cu, and the companies here continue to dispense it as a prescription topical. If that changes, this board comes down rather than being quietly repopulated.

What does the strongest GHK-Cu claim look like?

A topical, cosmetic, appearance-of-skin claim, phrased at the size the dermatology trials actually reported. Where a row here is graded as reaching past the trials, it is almost always because a systemic or regenerative claim has been attached to a topical product — hair growth, wound healing, tissue repair — none of which those trials tested.

Nothing pinned

Ranked by how much of what each company sells is described accurately — the share of the products this board counts whose marketing claim matches the trials behind it. Ties go to the company with more matching claims, then to the one that names its pharmacy, then to the one that publishes a testing regime, and last of all to alphabetical order. Nothing is pinned, sponsored, or lifted into position.

Medical disclaimer: This content is for general educational purposes only and is not medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a licensed healthcare professional before starting, stopping, or changing any treatment.