Where to buy the BPC-157 + TB-500 blend.

You can buy the BPC-157 + TB-500 blend from research-supply vendors online, and that's the only route to a pre-mixed vial with verifiable contents. The compounding pharmacy channel closed in 2023. So where to buy the BPC-157 + TB-500 blend really asks which vendor can demonstrate the quantity of each peptide inside the vial.

BPC-157 / TB-500 blend

Referenced in this guide

Batch-matched COAHPLC + mass specResearch use only

The BPC-157 / TB-500 blend referenced throughout this article, supplied as a research compound with a certificate of analysis matched to the lot you receive — the check this site argues you should hold any supplier to.

Shop BPC-157 / TB-500 blend

• CoA. Certificate of Analysis. A one-page lab report showing the specific lot's identity, purity, and content. For a blend, it must cover each constituent separately.
• ISO/IEC 17025. The international quality standard for testing labs. A 17025-accredited lab has been audited by a third party for technical competence.
• Co-lyophilized. Both peptides dissolved together, then freeze-dried into one homogeneous cake. The ratio is fixed throughout the cake.
• Co-vialed. Two separately produced powders combined in one container. Dry powders don't self-mix, so the ratio is whatever the filling line delivered.
• Quantitative assay. A test that measures how much of a compound is present, not just whether it's present. The only way to verify a blend's ratio.

Where can you buy the BPC-157 + TB-500 blend?

The BPC-157 + TB-500 blend comes from research-supply vendors, and that's the only channel selling it pre-mixed. Compounding pharmacies can't supply it, because the FDA moved BPC-157 to its 503A Category 2 list in 2023. The third option isn't a blend at all: buy the two singles and combine them yourself.

• Research-supply vendors, the main channel. Nearly all blend purchasing happens here, as lyophilized vials labeled for laboratory research use only. Legal under US law, not legal for human use, and the vendor isn't a pharmacy.
• Compounding pharmacies, channel closed. A 503A pharmacy is a US pharmacy licensed to prepare custom prescriptions for individual patients. The FDA's 2023 Category 2 listing for BPC-157 shut down compounding access to the blend's larger constituent, and no thymosin β4 product is FDA-approved either.
• The two-vial route. Buy BPC-157 and TB-500 as separate verified vials and combine at preparation time. Each arrives with its own single-compound CoA, so the verification problem stays simple.

The documentation bar on the first channel is higher than for singles. You want a third-party CoA from an ISO 17025-accredited lab covering both constituents' identity, per-constituent purity, and the measured ratio. Most vendor CoAs in this market fail at least one of those three, which is the useful filter.

A pharmacy-branded “Wolverine” or “repair stack” blend offered today deserves more scrutiny, not less. On the two-vial route, the costs are a second reconstitution step, a second set of dilution calculations, and usually a higher total price for the same mass. Our trade-offs section below takes that seriously, because for some buyers the singles are the right answer.

Which vendors should be on your blend shortlist?

A blend asks more of a vendor's paperwork than a single does, so start from suppliers that already clear the ordinary bar. Of the 16 storefronts we checked on 13 August 2026, these six published the most. What the table scores is the vendor, not the shelf — far fewer suppliers stock a pre-mixed blend than stock the two singles, so confirm the format before ordering. Pricing across this set is benchmarked on BPC-157 rather than on any blend, because BPC-157 is the compound all six carry; no blend price was verified across these vendors, so none is published here.

Three vendors from the same survey are absent on purpose. Red Rock Peptides advertises “Verified With COAs” and publishes no certificate at all. Limitless Biotech gates every price behind an account, so nothing it offers can be compared against anything. Behemoth Labz does publish, but its newest genuine certificate is dated August 2024. The full ranking, with the price column, is in our comparison of peptide companies. Disclosure: this site earns a commission on purchases made through its links, Peptriva included — which is why every column above is a document you can open or a figure you can load for yourself.

A mixture has no CAS of its own, so a blend certificate needs one identity line per component: CAS 137525-51-0 for BPC-157, confirmed at [M+H]⁺ 1420.6, and CAS 885340-08-9 for TB-500 with the form named — full-length Tβ4 or the Ac-LKKTETQ fragment. One purity figure for the vial verifies neither constituent.

What is the BPC-157 + TB-500 blend?

A “BPC-157 + TB-500 blend” isn't a new molecule. It's a fixed-ratio mixture of two well-characterized ones, sold in one vial so a fixed-ratio preparation takes one reconstitution step instead of two. That's the entire product concept. Convenience, not new pharmacology.

BPC-157 is a synthetic 15-amino-acid peptide. Its sequence is Gly-Glu-Pro-Pro-Pro-Gly-Lys-Pro-Ala-Asp-Asp-Ala-Gly-Leu-Val. It was originally identified as a partial sequence of a protein in human gastric juice.

Its proposed mechanism runs through VEGFR2 activation and Akt-eNOS nitric-oxide signaling, an angiogenesis-led repair story described by McGuire et al., 2025. A 2025 systematic review counted 36 studies for orthopaedic indications. Thirty-five were preclinical and one was clinical, per Vasireddi et al., 2025.

TB-500 is a marketing name, not a chemical identity. The parent molecule, thymosin β4, is a naturally occurring 43-amino-acid peptide. It makes up roughly 70–80% of all β-thymosins in human cells and works by sequestering G-actin one molecule at a time, per Ying et al., 2023.

Its cleavage product Ac-SDKP has separately been shown to promote endothelial repair after vascular injury, per Zhang et al., 2025.

What research-supply vendors ship under the TB-500 name is usually the synthetic Ac-LKKTETQ heptapeptide fragment carrying the actin-binding core. The 2026 Sports Medicine review explicitly distinguishes the full-length peptide from the fragment, per Mendias & Awan, 2026. That single-compound ambiguity transfers into every blend containing it.

Two manufacturing formats trade under the same “blend” label, and they aren't equivalent:

• Co-lyophilized, a single cake. Both peptides are dissolved together, sterile-filtered, and freeze-dried in the vial. The cake is homogeneous, so any reconstituted volume carries the stated ratio. This is the defensible format for a fixed-ratio product, and the CoA should test the finished cake.
• Co-vialed, two powders. Two separately made powders dispensed into one vial. Lyophilized powders don't blend themselves. The actual ratio depends on two independent fill steps, and a sample from the vial may not represent the whole. Vendors rarely disclose which format they use, so ask, and expect the CoA to answer.

One more identity fact worth knowing. A mixture doesn't get its own CAS Registry Number. So a legitimate blend CoA lists two CAS numbers, one per constituent: 137525-51-0 for BPC-157 and 885340-08-9 for the TB-500 fragment. A vendor advertizing a single “blend CAS” is improvising paperwork.

How do you verify a BPC-157 + TB-500 blend?

Four checks are unique to a BPC-157 + TB-500 blend, and they're the reason blends attract the market's least careful sellers. Confirm two masses, not one. Demand a quantitative ratio assay. Establish which TB-500 is in the vial. Demand per-constituent purity. Our eight general criteria apply on top.

1. Two identity lines, two masses

A blend CoA must confirm each constituent by mass spectrometry separately. For a 1:1 vial that means two observed masses. BPC-157 at 1419.6 g/mol, showing [M+H]⁺ 1420.6. The Ac-LKKTETQ fragment at 889.0 g/mol, showing [M+H]⁺ 890.0. Each should sit within 0.5 Da of theoretical.

One mass confirmed is a single-compound identity check. A blend needs both. A CoA reporting a single “identity: pass” line for a two-compound product hasn't identified the product.

2. The ratio is invisible without a quantitative assay

This is the check that separates blends from everything else. Standard qualitative mass-spec answers whether a molecule is present. It doesn't answer how much.

A vial labeled 10 mg + 10 mg that actually contains 16 mg BPC-157 and 4 mg TB-500 passes both identity checks. It can still show ≥98% chromatographic purity, because both molecules are present and the vial contains little else.

Only a quantitative result verifies the label ratio: per-constituent content by validated HPLC peak-area assay, or quantitative MS against reference standards.

The economics make this check non-optional. TB-500 costs more per mg to source than BPC-157, so the profitable direction of ratio drift is always the same. Under-fill the expensive constituent and no buyer can tell by eye, by weight, or by a qualitative CoA.

3. Which “TB-500” is in the blend

The single-compound identity problem carries straight into the blend. Fragment or full-length changes everything. The heptapeptide fragment is 889.0 g/mol and full-length Tβ4 is around 4963 Da.

Those masses differ by a factor of five, and mass-spec settles it in one number. But only if the CoA declares which form the blend was built with.

The mechanism literature the blend's marketing leans on mostly describes the full-length parent, per Ying et al., 2023. The marketed material is usually the fragment. A blend CoA that just says “TB-500” with no molecular weight fails the most basic identity check twice over.

4. Per-constituent purity, not one blended number

“Purity” of a mixture is an ambiguous statistic. A blend chromatogram has two main peaks by design. So a single “≥98% pure” claim can only mean that 98% of the material is either peptide. That says nothing about the synthesis quality of each constituent, or about the ratio.

The credible format reports purity per compound, each against its own related-substance profile. It then adds the usual lot-level tests on the finished cake: water content by Karl Fischer titration, typically 2–8% for lyophilized material, plus counterion content and endotoxin.

The 2025 HSS systematic review flagged unregulated manufacturing and contamination as plausible sources of harm separate from the molecules themselves, per Vasireddi et al., 2025. A blend passes through more manufacturing steps than either single.

What does the BPC-157 + TB-500 blend cost in 2026?

A verified 20 mg 1:1 BPC-157 + TB-500 blend vial costs $140–$260 in 2026. Blend pricing is anchored by the singles. Third-party tested BPC-157 runs $80–$150 per 10 mg vial and TB-500 runs $90–$180, so assembling the same 20 mg from two verified singles costs roughly $170–$330.

• 20 mg 1:1 blend vial, 10 mg + 10 mg: $140–$260, or $7–$13 per mg. The standard verified format.
• 10 mg 70/30-style blend vial, 7 mg + 3 mg: $70–$140. The community-convention format. Smaller total mass, similar per-mg math.
• Multi-vial discounts: 10–20% off on 3-packs at most vendors, same as the singles market.

A legitimate pre-mixed blend prices at a modest discount to the two-singles sum. One vial, one fill, one lot's worth of testing overhead.

Below roughly $100 per 20 mg blend vial, the arithmetic stops working. That price sits under the plausible cost of two properly purified constituents plus per-constituent testing. Something was skipped, usually the HPLC purification of one constituent, the quantitative ratio assay, or the more expensive TB-500 mass itself.

Suspiciously cheap blends aren't efficiency breakthroughs. They're unverified ratios. Above roughly $20 per mg you're paying retail markup rather than synthesis and testing cost.

One structural note. Because the ratio is invisible without quantitative testing, price-shopping blends per vial rewards exactly the vendors who cut the invisible corner. We'd compare per-mg against the singles and price in the CoA's scope. A blend CoA with a measured ratio is the product. The powder is just the substrate.

Is the BPC-157 + TB-500 blend legal to buy?

Yes. The BPC-157 + TB-500 blend is legal to buy and sell in the US as research reference material labeled for laboratory use only. It has no regulatory identity of its own. It inherits the status of both constituents, and the inheritance is restrictive on every axis.

• United States, FDA: Neither BPC-157 nor any thymosin β4 product is approved for any indication, and the combination has no separate status. Selling it for human consumption is illegal. FDA's 2023 placement of BPC-157 on the 503A Category 2 list closes the compounding channel.
• European Union, EMA: Neither constituent approved.
• WADA: Both constituents prohibited. BPC-157 sits under S0, Non-Approved Substances, effective January 2022, per Józwiak et al., 2025. Thymosin β4 sits under S2, Peptide Hormones and Growth Factors. One vial, two prohibited substances. See the WADA Prohibited List.
• Major sports leagues: Generally prohibited, and thymosin β4 is included in standard anti-doping panels.

On the evidence side, we'd make the sourcing decision with the record in view. The only published human exposure to the combination is a 4-patient subgroup inside the 2021 Lee and Padgett 17-patient retrospective knee series. It was uncontrolled, with no isolated combination outcome data, per Lee & Padgett, 2021.

There are zero published randomized trials of the combination. The 2026 sports-medicine reviews treat it as a practice that has run ahead of its evidence, per Mayfield et al., 2026.

What are the red flags when buying the blend?

Eight blend-specific warning signs we’d walk away from.

• One purity number for a two-compound product. A single “≥98% pure” line can’t describe a blend. Per-constituent purity, or it’s marketing copy.
• No quantitative ratio result on the CoA. The stated split is unverifiable without a per-constituent content assay. This is the blend’s defining check, and its absence is the blend’s defining red flag.
• Only one mass on the identity line. Both constituents must be confirmed: 1419.6 g/mol and the declared TB-500 mass. One mass means half the product is unidentified.
• “TB-500” with no molecular weight. The 889.0 g/mol fragment and the roughly 4963 Da full-length Tβ4 are different molecules with different literatures. The CoA must say which one the blend contains.
• A “blend CAS number.” Mixtures don’t get CAS registry numbers. Two constituents, two CAS numbers. Anything else is invented paperwork.
• Undisclosed co-vialing. Two powders dropped in one vial isn’t a co-lyophilized cake. If the vendor can’t say how the blend was made, assume the cheaper process.
• Clinical claims on the product page. “Heals tendon and muscle at the same time.” “The synergy stack.” No trial has tested the combination, so a vendor making combination-efficacy claims has crossed into territory no published study supports, and into FDA jurisdiction.
• Pricing below the sum of its parts’ costs. A 20 mg blend vial meaningfully under $100 implies an unpurified or under-filled constituent. The discount is the missing verification.

Should you buy the blend or two singles?

Both formats contain the same two molecules, so the differences are operational and they cut both ways. The blend wins on cost and handling. The singles win on ratio control and shelf discipline. Verification is close to a tie.

• Cost. The blend usually wins. A verified 20 mg 1:1 vial at $140–$260 undercuts the $170–$330 it takes to assemble the same masses from two verified singles. One vial, one shipment, one lot's testing overhead.
• Ratio control. The singles win, unconditionally. A pre-mix locks one ratio for the life of the vial. Research designs that titrate the constituents independently, on different schedules or at a non-standard split, can only be run from separate vials.
• Degradation profiles. The singles win on shelf discipline. The two constituents don't age identically. TB-500 is the more oxidation-sensitive of the pair, so a reconstituted blend's in-use window is set by its least stable constituent. Kept separate, the BPC-157 material isn't constrained by its vial-mate's clock.
• Handling error. The blend wins. One reconstitution, no second dilution calculation, no mis-weighing a second compound into a fixed-ratio preparation.
• Verification burden. A tie with a twist. Two singles mean two simple CoAs. The blend means one harder CoA that most vendors get wrong. If the blend CoA meets the two-identity-plus-ratio standard, the burden argument dissolves. If it doesn't, the singles were the safer purchase all along.

On ratios themselves, the market sells both 1:1 formats and the older 70/30 community convention. No published trial validated either. A stated ratio is a packaging decision, and the honest framing is that a blend buys convenience at a locked ratio, not a validated protocol.

Our BPC-157 vs TB-500 comparison covers how the two molecules differ when the question is which one, rather than both.

Wolverine Blend

20 mg (10 + 10) ≥99% pure each Lyophilized

10 mg BPC-157 + 10 mg TB-500 co-lyophilized in a single sterile cake — same compounds and same lots as the standalone vials. ISO 17025 third-party CoA per lot with both identities confirmed by MS, per-constituent HPLC purity, endotoxin, and counterion content on the finished cake.

Learn more

Frequently asked questions

Is the BPC-157 + TB-500 blend legal to buy in the USA?

Yes, as research reference material labeled for laboratory use only. It sits on the same footing as its two constituents. Neither constituent is FDA-approved, the combination has no separate regulatory status, and selling it for human consumption is illegal. Buying it as research material is not.

What should a blend Certificate of Analysis show?

Five things. Mass-spec identity for both constituents, at 1419.6 g/mol and the declared TB-500 mass. Per-constituent HPLC purity ≥98% with chromatogram. A quantitative content result confirming the stated ratio. Both CAS numbers, 137525-51-0 and 885340-08-9, on the identity lines.

Then lot-level tests on the finished cake: Karl Fischer water content, typically 2–8%, plus counterion and endotoxin. The testing lab should be ISO/IEC 17025-accredited and named on the report.

What's the difference between co-lyophilized and co-vialed?

Co-lyophilized means both peptides were dissolved together and freeze-dried into one homogeneous cake, so the ratio holds everywhere in the vial. Co-vialed means two separately made powders were dispensed into one container.

Powders don't self-mix, so the ratio is whatever two independent fill steps delivered. For a fixed-ratio product, the single cake tested as a finished cake is the defensible standard.

Should researchers buy the blend or two separate vials?

Fixed-ratio work favors the blend. It's cheaper per mg than assembling the singles, takes one preparation step, and removes the second-compound weighing error.

Designs that titrate the constituents independently need the singles. The singles also keep TB-500's shorter in-use window from constraining the BPC-157 material. No published human trial supports either format as more effective, so the choice is operational.

Why do blend ratios vary between vendors?

Because no trial ever set one. The 1:1 format and the 70/30 community convention are both packaging choices with post-hoc rationales, not evidence-derived optima. A stated ratio only means something when the CoA verifies it quantitatively, which is also why the ratio is where low-quality vendors economize.

Is the blend banned in sport?

Twice over. BPC-157 sits on the WADA Prohibited List under S0 since January 2022, and thymosin β4 sits under S2. One vial, two prohibited substances, and Tβ4 is part of standard anti-doping panels. Athletes subject to testing should verify current status with WADA directly.

Does the blend have its own CAS number?

No. CAS Registry Numbers identify single chemical substances, and a mixture doesn't receive one. A legitimate blend CoA lists one CAS number per constituent. A vendor quoting a “blend CAS” has invented it.