Peptide Price Index 2026: 90-Day Vendor Trends

Across the trailing 90 days — June 3 to September 1, 2026 — a daily scraper captured 4,246 public price observations covering 63 peptides, 319 distinct SKUs, and 9 anonymized vendors. Normalized to a per-mg basis, the spread between the cheapest and most expensive compounds in the dataset runs from NAD+ at a $0.10/mg median to AOD-9604 at $11.00/mg — a 110× range inside a single market.

The headline number for anyone planning a purchase is the aggregate stockout rate: 9.4% of vendor-day observations showed a product unavailable, concentrated heavily in BPC-157 (38.9% OOS) and pinealon (28.7%). Prices in this market move less than availability does.

Methodology

Research-context information only. This report describes industry pricing patterns observed over a trailing 90-day window. Nothing in this report is medical advice, financial advice, or a recommendation to buy or sell any peptide. Peptides discussed are research compounds; most are not approved by the FDA for human use. Consult a licensed physician for personal medical decisions.

Vendor identities are anonymized to maintain editorial independence. Pricing data is normalized to a per-mg basis. All data sourced from publicly-listed vendor prices captured daily during the data window.

The pipeline is simple. A daily scraper visits each tracked vendor's product pages, parses the listed price and stock status, and writes a snapshot row to an offer_price_history table. Each row is one (vendor, SKU, captured-at) tuple. We do not use cached data, retail aggregators, or rumored prices — every observation is a public price visible to any buyer on the day it was captured.

Per-mg normalization is computed as price_cents ÷ (mg_per_vial × vial_count) so a 10-vial bundle of 5mg vials at $400 normalizes to the same $8.00/mg as a single 10mg vial at $80.

For this report, vendors are renamed Vendor A, Vendor B, Vendor C, … using a stable SHA-1 hash of their internal id. The hash sort means a given vendor keeps the same label across successive monthly refreshes — but you cannot reverse-engineer the label back to the vendor without access to the source database. That is intentional.

Median and range figures below are computed from in-stock observations only; stockout rates and volatility figures are computed from all observations.

Cross-Peptide Trends

The chart above plots a 7-day rolling median per-mg price for the ten most-tracked peptides over the trailing 90-day window (June 3 – September 1, 2026). Three patterns stand out.

The commodity peptides stayed cheap and stayed put. NAD+ (around $0.10/mg) and GHK-Cu bulk vials (around $0.65/mg) traced essentially flat lines across the full window. These are the compounds sold in 100mg, 500mg, and 1000mg vials, where the per-mg arithmetic collapses the price into commodity territory regardless of what any single vendor does.

The mid-market clustered in a $4–$11 band. Melanotan-2 ($4.30/mg median), KPV ($4.50), selank ($4.75), BPC-157 ($4.90), PT-141 ($4.90), epitalon ($5.00), MOTS-c ($5.40), tirzepatide ($5.67), semax ($6.00), DSIP ($6.00), SS-31 ($6.00), sermorelin ($7.20), retatrutide ($7.33), 5-amino-1MQ ($7.50), cagrilintide ($9.50), CJC-1295 ($10.00), ipamorelin ($10.00), tesamorelin ($10.00), TB-500 ($10.80), and AOD-9604 ($11.00) all landed inside it. That band is where most of the market lives, and it moved very little week to week.

Medians split by compound this window — and the split is real, not just composition. Comparing the first two weeks against the last two, blended medians fell for BPC-157 (-7.5%), sermorelin (-15.3%), GHK-Cu (-17.7%), and NAD+ (-30.7%), while tirzepatide (+24.6%) and retatrutide (+13.6%) rose. A like-for-like check — holding both vendor and vial size constant across the two halves — supports the declines: every matched SKU on those four compounds repriced downward, including GHK-Cu's 100mg tier at two separate vendors ($0.63 → $0.46 and $0.79 → $0.65) and sermorelin's 10mg vial ($8.50 → $7.20).

The two increases do not survive the same test. Retatrutide's blended median rose while four of its five matched SKUs fell 7–17% at one vendor; the rise came from a different, more expensive vendor entering the daily cohort. Tirzepatide's matched SKUs moved in both directions — one vendor's 10mg tier ran $6.90 → $6.00 while another's went $6.95 → $10.50.

That asymmetry is the most important methodological caveat in this report. Vendor coverage shifted from 7 vendors and 41 peptides in June to 8 and 53 in July, then back to 7 and 53 in August. When the set of vendors being captured changes, the median changes with it — no vendor has to touch a price tag. Blended medians describe what a buyer could see on a given day. The matched-SKU check is what tells you whether anyone actually repriced.

Per-Peptide Deep Dives

Each of the six peptides below has its own daily-range chart. The vertical wicks show the min-to-max per-mg price across all vendors on that day; the yellow dots are the daily median. No vendor lines, no vendor labels — this is supply-side dispersion only.

Tirzepatide

• Observations: 495 across 5 vendors (14 distinct SKUs)
• Median per-mg: $5.67
• Range across full window: $1.99 – $219.80 per mg (95th percentile: $7.50)
• Daily-median pricing changes (>0.5%): 25 across 90 transitions
• OOS rate: 1.0%

Tirzepatide is the most-tracked peptide in the dataset at 495 observations — more than double the next compound — and it carries the lowest stockout rate of any deep-dive peptide at 1.0%. Supply is deep enough that no shortage pressure is visible anywhere in the window.

The full range looks alarming and mostly isn't. The $219.80/mg top is a single observation of a 5mg trial-size SKU; the 95th percentile sits at $7.50/mg and 96.0% of all observations priced at or below $10/mg, so the median describes essentially all real buying. The genuine structure is vial-size tiering: 10mg vials ran a $6.90 median, 30mg vials $5.67, 60mg $2.80, and the 100mg SKU priced at $1.99/mg. Per-mg cost falls roughly 3.5× from the smallest common vial to the largest.

For ranked vendor options, see Best Tirzepatide Vendors.

Tirzepatide is the active ingredient in approved finished pharmaceutical products. The pricing in this dataset is for research-chemical compounded forms, which are not FDA-approved.

Retatrutide

• Observations: 151 across 5 vendors (21 distinct SKUs)
• Median per-mg: $7.33
• Range across full window: $3.08 – $12.50 per mg (95th percentile: $9.67)
• Daily-median pricing changes (>0.5%): 48 across 81 transitions
• OOS rate: 13.9%

Retatrutide has one of the two noisiest daily medians in the deep-dive set — 48 moves greater than 0.5% across only 81 day-to-day transitions, meaning the median shifted on well over half of all comparable days. That is a mechanical effect more than a market one: five vendors carrying 21 SKUs means any single vendor going in or out of stock swings the median measurably, and the 13.9% stockout rate guarantees that happens often.

The absolute range is contained by comparison — $3.08 to $12.50/mg, roughly 4×, with no extreme outliers and 98.0% of observations at or below $10/mg. Vial sizes ran from 8mg to 60mg, and the tiering is steep: the 30mg tier carried the bulk of observations at a $7.33 median while 50mg and 60mg vials ran $3.49 and $3.65. Retatrutide remains an investigational molecule and supply is visibly thinner than tirzepatide's.

For ranked vendor options, see Best Retatrutide Vendors.

Retatrutide is investigational and not FDA-approved. All pricing is for research-grade material.

BPC-157

• Observations: 198 across 6 vendors (10 distinct SKUs)
• Median per-mg: $4.90
• Range across full window: $2.87 – $79.98 per mg (95th percentile: $74.00)
• Daily-median pricing changes (>0.5%): 17 across 90 transitions
• OOS rate: 38.9%

BPC-157 carries the highest stockout rate in the entire dataset — 38.9% of its vendor-day observations showed the product unavailable, close to two in five. Ongoing regulatory pressure around BPC-157 coincides with that inventory strain, though this dataset records availability, not cause.

The strain is not evenly distributed across vial sizes. The 5mg tier was out of stock in 83.0% of its observations; the 10mg tier, with 98 observations, was never out of stock in the window. A buyer's experience of BPC-157 scarcity depends almost entirely on which vial size they are shopping for.

The price structure is genuinely two-tiered rather than outlier-driven. Bulk vials (10mg and larger) ran $2.87–$6.00/mg with a $4.90 median. The 5mg tier split: 71 observations at $11.00/mg and nine at $74.00–$79.98/mg from a single premium retail source. That premium tier is 4.5% of all BPC-157 observations — small, but large enough that the 95th percentile lands at $74.00 rather than in the bulk range. Just under 60% of all observations priced at or below $10.00/mg.

For ranked vendor options, see Best BPC-157 Vendors.

NAD+

• Observations: 103 across 4 vendors (6 distinct SKUs)
• Median per-mg: $0.10
• In-stock range: $0.08 – $0.16 per mg (full-window max $25.00 — a single 1mg SKU)
• Daily-median pricing changes (>0.5%): 13 across 90 transitions
• OOS rate: 8.7%

NAD+ is the cheapest compound in the dataset by two orders of magnitude, and the reason is vial size: 1000mg vials accounted for 95 of its 103 observations, 92.2% of the total. At that scale the per-mg cost lands in commodity territory — an $0.08 to $0.16 band that barely moved all window, with only 13 daily-median changes above 0.5%. The one 1500mg SKU in the cohort priced lower still at $0.077/mg.

The $25.00/mg figure in the raw data is one observation of a 1mg SKU that was out of stock at capture. It is the sole reason NAD+ tops the volatility leaderboard below, and it is not a price any buyer transacted at during the window.

Availability improved sharply versus prior windows. The 1000mg tier ran a 3.2% stockout rate; the thin 500mg tier was dark in four of its five observations. The blended 8.7% rate is almost entirely that one small tier.

Sermorelin

• Observations: 97 across 3 vendors (3 distinct SKUs)
• Median per-mg: $7.20
• Range across full window: $7.00 – $10.00 per mg (95th percentile: $8.50)
• Daily-median pricing changes (>0.5%): 6 across 90 transitions
• OOS rate: 2.1%

Sermorelin is the most stably priced peptide in the deep-dive set on every measure: the tightest range ($7.00–$10.00/mg, a 1.4× spread), the fewest daily-median changes (6 in 90 transitions), an 8.1% coefficient of variation, and a 2.1% stockout rate. The 10mg vial supplied 93 of 97 observations and never went out of stock, so the tightness is not an artifact of one vendor dominating a thin SKU set — the vendors genuinely price sermorelin within a narrow band.

That pattern is consistent with a mature compound: a long history as a GHRH analog, an established compounded-pharmacy channel, and no supply events during the window.

GHK-Cu

• Observations: 168 across 5 vendors (10 distinct SKUs)
• Median per-mg: $0.65 (bulk segment; see below)
• Range across full window: $0.45 – $59.95 per mg
• Daily-median pricing changes (>0.5%): 49 across 89 transitions
• OOS rate: 23.8%

GHK-Cu is the clearest example in the dataset of a compound where a single median hides the market. It splits into two genuinely separate segments rather than a core plus outliers.

The bulk segment — 50mg and 100mg vials, 64.9% of observations — ran a $0.65/mg median across a $0.45–$13.79 range, and its 100mg tier was in stock in 99% of observations. The small-vial segment — 1mg and 2mg SKUs, 33.9% of observations — priced at $29.95–$59.95/mg and was out of stock more than half the time. These are not the same purchase. Small-vial GHK-Cu at those per-mg prices generally reflects cosmetic and topical formulations, where the buyer is paying for the finished product rather than the raw peptide mass.

The 49 daily-median moves are also a segment artifact: as the small-vial SKUs flick in and out of stock, the blended daily median jumps between the two segments. Nothing in the bulk tier moved that often.

Volatility Leaderboard

The chart plots the coefficient of variation (CoV) of per-mg pricing for every peptide with at least 30 observations in the trailing-90-day window — 28 peptides qualified. CoV = standard deviation ÷ mean, expressed as a percent. Higher = wider spread between vendors, SKUs, and time.

Reading the leaderboard:

• Above 60% CoV: NAD+ (682.0%), tirzepatide (155.9%), BPC-157 (138.5%), GHK-Cu (134.4%), TB-500 (97.2%). Every one of these is driven by SKU-mix or channel dispersion, not vendor disagreement on comparable product. NAD+'s figure comes from a single 1mg observation sitting alongside 1000mg vials; GHK-Cu's from the cosmetic-vs-bulk split; tirzepatide's from one trial-size SKU. TB-500 is the most interesting case: its dispersion is not vial size at all, but two vendors pricing the same 5mg vial at $70.32 and $10.80 — a premium retail channel and a research channel selling identical packaging at a 6.5× gap.
• 30–60% CoV: 5-amino-1MQ (35.8%), retatrutide (30.3%), semax (30.3%). Genuine mid-range dispersion across a modest vendor pool.
• 15–30% CoV: tesamorelin (25.3%), pinealon (23.8%), tesofensine (23.8%), MOTS-c (20.6%), CJC-1295 (20.4%), AOD-9604 (20.1%), SS-31 (18.2%), KPV (16.7%), epitalon (16.0%), DSIP (15.7%). The comparison-shopping zone — real spread between vendors on the same product.
• Below 15% CoV: thymosin alpha-1 (14.1%), selank (13.3%), cagrilintide (12.2%), PT-141 (11.9%), kisspeptin (11.4%), melanotan-2 (8.7%), sermorelin (8.1%), melanotan-1 (7.0%), ipamorelin (6.7%), cartalax (5.8%). Ten of the 28 tracked peptides price within a tight band across every vendor in the cohort.

The practical read: a high CoV number on this chart is a prompt to check what is being compared, not automatically a signal that one vendor is overcharging. Sometimes it is vial size (tirzepatide, NAD+), sometimes it is a cosmetic-versus-research channel split (GHK-Cu, TB-500), and sometimes — retatrutide and 5-amino-1MQ are the cleanest examples, with uniform packaging and no premium-retail tier — it is straightforward vendor price dispersion on the same thing.

Supply Patterns

The heatmap above shows OOS rate per peptide per ISO week. Darker = more vendor-days marked out of stock during that week.

Aggregate stockout rate for the window: 9.4%, meaning roughly one in eleven vendor-day observations across the dataset showed a product as unavailable. That is a materially better supply picture than the preceding window, which ran at 12.2%.

The weekly trend was cyclical rather than directional. Availability ran 8.7–9.3% through June, improved to a 4.8% low in the week of June 29, then spiked to the window's worst reading of 19.1% in the week of July 6. A second spike hit 16.1% in the week of August 3. Between and after those two events the dataset settled back to 4.7–8.3%. The two spikes are the dominant feature of the window; the baseline in the weeks around them is consistently under 9%.

Concentration matters more than the aggregate. The peptides carrying sustained dark bands are BPC-157 (38.9% OOS), pinealon (28.7%), GHK-Cu (23.8%), and SS-31 (20.0%). Below those four the drop is steep: cartalax at 14.9%, retatrutide at 13.9%, PT-141 at 10.3%, NAD+ at 8.7%, and everything else in single digits. The dataset's 9.4% aggregate is not a market-wide scarcity signal — it is four compounds under real pressure and a long tail that is broadly well-stocked.

Stockout patterns also interact with price. When one or two vendors go dark, the median per-mg price visible to buyers can drift upward simply because the cheapest vendor disappeared from the cohort — the same composition effect described in the cross-peptide section. GHK-Cu's 49 daily-median moves and retatrutide's 48 both trace back to stock flicker rather than repricing. The price chart and the OOS chart are best read together.

What This Means for Buyers

Generic, evergreen guidance based on the patterns visible across the window:

Check vial size before concluding a vendor is expensive. This is the single largest source of apparent price difference in the dataset. Tirzepatide's per-mg cost fell roughly 3.5× from its 10mg tier to its 100mg tier. NAD+'s entire 110× advantage over mid-market peptides is vial-size arithmetic. Retatrutide's 60mg tier priced at half its 30mg tier.

Check the channel too. Vial size explains most dispersion but not all of it. TB-500's 5mg vial sold at $70.32/mg from one source and $10.80/mg from another during the same window — identical packaging, 6.5× the price. BPC-157 shows the same pattern in miniature. A premium-retail listing and a research-supply listing can look like the same product on a search results page.

Comparison shopping pays on some compounds and not others. Retatrutide, 5-amino-1MQ, semax, tesamorelin, MOTS-c, and CJC-1295 showed 20–36% CoV with comparable SKUs — genuine vendor-to-vendor spread. Sermorelin, PT-141, ipamorelin, melanotan-1, melanotan-2, and cartalax all sat under 12%, where the delta between vendors is smaller than the difference shipping speed or COA documentation makes.

Availability is the binding constraint on a few compounds, not most. With BPC-157 at 38.9% and pinealon at 28.7% OOS, a buyer's practical problem on those compounds is finding stock rather than finding a good price. But the constraint is often tier-specific: BPC-157's 5mg vials were dark 83% of the time while its 10mg vials never went out of stock at all.

Per-mg, not per-vial. Vial sizes in this dataset ranged from 1mg to 1500mg. Comparing dollar prices without normalizing to per-mg is the largest avoidable source of overpaying in this market.

Premium small-vial SKUs distort every summary statistic. When a peptide shows a max per-mg price 5–10× its median, it is almost always a 1mg, 2mg, or 5mg trial-size or cosmetic SKU at full retail. GHK-Cu's small-vial segment prices roughly 50× above its bulk segment for what is nominally the same compound.

End-of-month vs. mid-month. This window was not granular enough to confirm end-of-month promotional pricing as a reliable pattern. Some vendors run periodic clearance events; others price flat. Future refreshes will track this more carefully.

If you want a vendor starting point without doing your own daily price tracking, our Best Peptide Vendors of 2026 compares the top-rated vendors on price, COA documentation, shipping reliability, and reputation. That ranking is updated continuously as data shifts.

Methodology Limitations

In the spirit of editorial independence, the limitations of this dataset:

1. The window covers June 3 – September 1, 2026 (trailing 90 days), with data captured on 91 of those days. Each monthly refresh rolls this window forward, so the figures always describe the most recent quarter of live prices rather than a fixed calendar quarter.
2. Cohort composition changed during the window. Coverage moved from 7 vendors and 41 peptides in June to 8 and 53 in July, then back to 7 and 53 in August. When the captured vendor set changes, blended medians move without anyone repricing. This edition adds a matched-SKU check (same vendor, same vial size, both halves of the window) to separate the two, and the cross-peptide section reports where the two disagree.
3. Per-mg normalization assumes purity parity. It does not hold. Two vendors selling 10mg of "BPC-157" may ship different actual peptide quantities depending on assay results. This dataset takes the listed mg figure at face value and does not adjust for COA-reported purity.
4. Bundle SKUs were normalized as mg_per_vial × vial_count. This is the right adjustment for buyers comparing per-mg cost, but it slightly compresses the apparent vendor-spread for peptides where bundle pricing varies significantly per-vial.
5. Cosmetic, topical, and premium-retail listings are priced alongside research-grade vials. GHK-Cu and TB-500 are the clearest cases — their small-vial and premium-channel SKUs are finished consumer products, not raw research material, but they normalize into the same per-mg column. This inflates both the range and the CoV for any compound sold through both channels.
6. Nine vendors is a meaningful slice but not exhaustive. The cohort skews toward English-language US-shipping research-grade vendors. Non-US vendors and prescription-only compounded sources are not in this dataset.
7. Anonymization is an editorial choice, not a privacy requirement. All prices in this dataset were public on vendor websites at the time of capture. We anonymize because it lets us report on industry-wide patterns without our affiliate relationships influencing the analysis.
8. The OOS flag reflects what the vendor's website displayed. Some vendors mark a SKU as "available — backorder 7 days," which we treat as in-stock; others show "out of stock" the moment inventory hits zero. Inter-vendor stock-status reporting is not strictly comparable.
9. Thin tiers carry outsized weight in blended rates. NAD+'s 8.7% stockout rate is driven almost entirely by a 500mg tier with five observations. Any figure computed across a peptide's full SKU set should be read alongside the per-tier breakdown.

Coming Next

This report refreshes monthly, with each version covering a rolling trailing-90-day window on full daily scraper cadence. The chart set and anonymization scheme stay constant across refreshes so successive versions are directly comparable.

Planned additions to future refreshes:

• Vial-size-normalized medians — per-mg figures computed within matched SKU tiers, so headline numbers stop moving when the SKU mix changes
• Channel segmentation — separating premium-retail listings from research-supply listings before computing dispersion, so CoV measures vendor disagreement rather than market structure
• Period-over-period delta for every peptide with a stable vendor cohort across successive windows
• End-of-month vs. mid-month pricing pattern test
• Stockout-to-price-recovery lag — how many days between OOS-onset and post-restock pricing returning to baseline

Where to buy if you're researching options

For most readers landing here from FDA / vendor / pricing coverage, the two highest-utility next-stops on this site are:

• Retatrutide for sale — vendor price comparison — vendor pricing, COA verification, vial-size tradeoffs for the highest-search-volume peptide of 2026
• Best Peptide Vendors of 2026 — head-to-head vendor comparison ranked by price, COA documentation, and reputation