Janoshik Analytical is a Czech analytical laboratory and, by volume, the busiest independent tester in the research peptide market. Vendors on several continents send samples there, which means most certificates of analysis you will encounter cite Janoshik. It also means Janoshik is the most-faked lab name in the industry: a convincing-looking PDF takes a designer twenty minutes, and most buyers never check. The check takes under a minute. This guide shows the three ways to run it and what the result does and does not prove.
A real Janoshik certificate identifies the test number, the compound tested, the analytical method (HPLC for purity, with mass spectrometry available for identity), the measured purity percentage, the measured content in milligrams against the label claim, the test date, and the client name as the submitter chose to display it. The two fields buyers skip are the ones that matter most: measured content, because underfilling is more common than impurity, and the date, because a certificate describes one batch at one moment.
Enter the report’s unique key at janoshik.com/verification, scan the QR code printed on it, or search the test number in the lab’s public database. Three routes, one server of record.
A verified report proves that a sample submitted under that test number measured a given purity and content on a given date. It does not prove the sample came from the batch the vendor says it did, that your vial came from that batch, or anything about sterility, endotoxins, or heavy metals, which are separate analyses that standard purity testing does not include. A COA is one data point about one vial. This is why we aggregate: a vendor’s whole published history says far more than any single certificate, and that history is what the vendor rankings score.
Submitters choose whether a test becomes public, and nobody publishes their failures. The public record therefore skews positive by construction. Verification tells you a certificate is real; it cannot tell you what a vendor chose not to show. Aggregated history, sample size, and recency, which is what our per-peptide leaderboards surface, are the corrective.
Yes. Vendors, group buys, and individual researchers all submit, and the submitter controls the display name and whether the result is published publicly.
No. It verifies a sample the submitter sent, under chain of custody the submitter controlled. It is strong evidence about a vendor’s batch, not a warranty on your specific vial.
MZ Biolabs, Vanguard, and Freedom Diagnostics also issue COAs you will see in this market, each with its own verification path. Freedom Diagnostics runs a public database of its own, covered in our lookup guide; the sources page lists the rest.
Do not order, and check whether the vendor appears in our unverified list or has a profile with published history. A failed verification is the single loudest signal this market produces.
Sixty seconds against the lab’s own server beats any amount of website copy. Our COA checker walks the steps interactively, and every score on this site links back to the published record it came from, so you can run the same verification on our data that you would run on a vendor’s.
PeptideCensus Editorial is the research team behind the independent peptide lab-result index. Every article is built from published third-party data - trial publications, lab reports, and regulatory records - with every number linked to its source. We don't test, we don't sell, and commissions never touch scores or rankings.
About PeptideCensus →