How the Vendor Benchmark Works
A transparent walkthrough of how PeptideBenchmark combines Finnrick and Peptide Critic into one ranked board.
What this board is actually doing
PeptideBenchmark is not pretending to be a lab, a pharmacy, or a regulator. The vendor board is a normalized benchmark layer built from public source records.
Right now the two upstream sources are:
Each source has its own scale, coverage, and blind spots. Our job is to make those differences legible instead of hiding them behind a single mystery score.
The three numbers that matter
Every vendor card surfaces three different ideas:
Benchmark score
This is the normalized source score.
- If a vendor appears on both sources, we blend Finnrick’s 10-point score with Peptide Critic’s rating after converting the Peptide Critic value onto a 10-point scale.
- If a vendor appears on only one source, the benchmark score stays single-source until more coverage exists.
The letter badge shown on cards is PeptideBenchmark’s own benchmark grade derived from that normalized score. It is not a raw badge copied directly from Finnrick or Peptide Critic.
Rank score
This is the ordering score used on the leaderboard.
Rank score is confidence-weighted. It pulls thin evidence back toward a neutral baseline so a tiny perfect sample does not automatically outrank a vendor with deeper evidence.
Confidence band
Confidence shows how much underlying signal is carrying the score.
Higher confidence usually means:
- more Finnrick test records
- more Peptide Critic reviews
- or coverage from both sources instead of just one
On the public site, some one-source entries are labeled Single-source in the UI so readers do not mistake limited coverage for a negative quality judgment. Under the hood, the model still computes an internal confidence band that drives ranking.
Why a perfect score is not always a top rank
A vendor can show a very strong raw score and still rank below a competitor with broader evidence. That is intentional.
The board is designed to reward signal quality, not just signal intensity.
For example, a Peptide Critic-only vendor with a perfect rating but limited source depth should not automatically sit above a consensus vendor supported by dozens of tests and reviews across both sources.
What the board does not prove
Even a strong benchmark profile does not prove:
- current batch identity
- current sterility
- current endotoxin status
- fulfillment quality on your next order
- legality or medical suitability for human use
This board is a research and sourcing tool, not a substitute for due diligence.
What we want the site to become
The long-term goal is to keep the benchmark layer transparent while adding stronger editorial work on top:
- clearer source methodology
- scheduled source refreshes
- original guides that explain what a score can and cannot tell you
- eventually, first-party review standards that are disclosed separately from source aggregation
If a future page makes an editorial claim, it should be labeled as editorial. If a score comes from a source sync, it should be labeled as source-derived.