CJC / GHRP-6 is listed at 5 mg / 5 mg for $140.00. The two numbers in the strength are the point: this is one vial containing two separately synthesised peptides, and almost everything that makes it different from an ordinary listing follows from that.
This covers what each component is, whether the blend is cheaper than buying the parts, and what a certificate for a two-compound vial has to establish that a single-compound certificate does not. Everything about biological activity is reported from published work and named by model. The material is supplied for laboratory research only.
| Compound | Vial strengths | Molecular weight | Amino acids |
|---|---|---|---|
| CJC / GHRP-6 | 5 mg / 5 mg | — | — |
| CJC-1295 No DAC | 5 mg, 10 mg | 3367.93 g/mol | 29 |
| GHRP-6 | 5 mg, 10 mg | 873.01 g/mol | 6 |
From the Restate Health catalog records. Lot-specific values are on each certificate of analysis.
Two unrelated molecules
The components come from different structural families and were developed along different lines.
CJC-1295 is an analogue of the growth-hormone-releasing hormone sequence, modified for stability. It exists in two catalogue forms distinguished by whether a drug-affinity-complex modification is present, and the two behave differently in published work — CJC-1295 with and without DAC covers the distinction, which matters here because a blend listing that says only 'CJC' has not told you which.
GHRP-6 is a growth-hormone-releasing peptide, a short synthetic hexapeptide from the series studied as ghrelin-receptor agonists. It is chemically unrelated to the GHRH family despite the shared research context. Growth hormone secretagogues explained covers how the two classes differ, and GHRP-2 and GHRP-6 explained covers the near neighbour.
The first question to settle before ordering is therefore which CJC form is in the vial. A blend is an opportunity for ambiguity that a single listing does not offer, and the certificate rather than the product name has to answer it.
Does the blend save money?
The arithmetic is worth doing because it does not always come out the way the listing implies.
| Purchase | Strength | Price |
|---|---|---|
| CJC / GHRP-6 blend | 5 mg / 5 mg | $140.00 |
| CJC-1295 No DAC separately | 5 mg | $112.00 |
| GHRP-6 separately | 5 mg | $56.00 |
| Components bought separately | 5 mg + 5 mg | $168.00 |
| Difference | — | $28.00 in the blend's favour |
The blend against its components at matching strengths
The blend is $28.00 cheaper than the same masses bought as two vials, a saving of about 17 per cent. That is a real saving and it comes from the obvious place: one fill, one lot release, one certificate, one shipment line.
What it costs is flexibility. The ratio is fixed at whatever the supplier filled, so any work needing a different proportion needs separate vials regardless of price. And the two compounds share a re-test date and a storage history, so the component you use more slowly is on the other one's clock. Blends and single vials covers that trade in general terms.
What a two-compound certificate must establish
A certificate for a blend has to answer every question a single-compound certificate answers, twice, plus one more.
Identity for each component separately, with sequences stated. A combined purity figure is close to meaningless on a two-compound vial — 98 per cent of what, when the vial is deliberately two substances? What is needed is purity per component, and a statement of how the two were resolved analytically. Mass spectrometry and peptide identity covers identity, and HPLC purity explained covers what a chromatographic purity figure measures.
Then the additional question: content, meaning how much of each is actually present. A 5 mg / 5 mg label is a nominal fill of each, and the certificate should report measured content per component, not just confirm that both are there. Without it the ratio in the vial is an assumption.
Net peptide content applies per component as well. Net peptide content explains why labelled mass and peptide mass differ; on a blend the discrepancy can differ between the two compounds, which makes the real ratio different from the printed one.
Reading the price against the certificate
The $28.00 saving should be weighed against what the blend's documentation actually delivers. If the certificate reports per-component identity, purity and content, the saving is real and the blend is a straightforwardly better purchase for anyone wanting that ratio.
If the certificate reports a single combined purity and no per-component content, the saving has been made partly by testing less, and the buyer is accepting a thinner document in exchange for $28.00. That may still be a reasonable trade, but it should be a decision rather than an accident. Comparing suppliers on documentation rather than price covers reading documentation depth as a pricing signal.
Where this blend sits among the others
The catalogue carries several secretagogue combinations, and they are not variations on one product — each pairs a GHRH-family analogue with a different releasing peptide, and the differences are chemical rather than cosmetic.
That matters when substituting. A blend is sometimes chosen because a preferred one is out of stock, and the near neighbour on the shelf is a different pairing rather than a different brand of the same thing. Buying growth hormone axis blends covers the others as purchases, and growth hormone secretagogues explained covers how the classes differ.
The practical check before substituting is to compare component sequences rather than product names, since two blends can share a name element and differ in both components.
What the blend name does not tell you
Three things are absent from a combination product name and all three belong in the order conversation.
Which variant of each component. 'CJC' covers two catalogue forms, and a blend listing that does not specify has left the most consequential detail to the certificate.
Whether the components were blended before filling or filled separately into one vial. The distinction affects uniformity: a homogeneous solution blended and then lyophilised gives a consistent cake, while two materials combined dry can in principle separate. A supplier should be able to say which.
And whether the stated ratio is nominal or measured. A label reading 5 mg / 5 mg is a target; the certificate should report what was found. Net peptide content compounds this, because the two components can differ in net content and shift the real ratio further from the printed one.
What the fixed ratio commits you to
A 5 mg / 5 mg fill is a one-to-one ratio by mass, and that is the only ratio the vial can ever provide. Three consequences follow that are easy to overlook at the point of saving $28.00.
Equal mass is not equal molar quantity. The two components have different molecular weights, so a one-to-one mass ratio is not a one-to-one molar ratio, and if the work thinks in moles rather than milligrams the printed ratio is not the operative one. Molecular weight for buyers covers converting between the two.
Consumption is locked together. Using the vial at all uses both components, so if one is needed more often than the other, the blend wastes the slower one at exactly the rate the faster one is consumed.
And substitution becomes impossible. If one component later needs changing — a different CJC form, a different strength — the whole vial changes rather than one line of the order. For exploratory work that flexibility is usually worth more than the saving; for a settled protocol it is worth nothing and the blend wins.
Handling and storage
A blend stores as its least stable component. There is no mechanism by which the more robust molecule protects the other, so every handling decision should be made for whichever of the two is more demanding.
Dry, cold and dark in the sealed vial. After reconstitution, aliquot into single-session volumes rather than cycling a shared container — freeze-thaw cycles and aliquoting covers why each cycle costs something, and on a blend it costs something to two molecules at once. How peptides degrade covers the routes.
Record both components against the lot in your inventory rather than recording the blend as one item. The question that eventually arises is which compounds a piece of work used, and a record naming only the blend answers it poorly. Lot traceability and recordkeeping covers the file.