Peptide Decoding
Two peptide vials side by side on a dark surface
Step 02 / Compare

Compare peptides side by side

Type two or more compounds the way you'd type them into Google. Spelling doesn't have to be right.

2/4

Separate them with vs, a comma, or +. Up to 4 compounds.

Try

ATX-304 and SR9009 are each a small molecule rather than a peptide.

/compare/atx-304-vs-sr9009
ComparisonATX-304 (O-304)
O-304 · ATX304
SR9009 (Stenabolic)
Stenabolic · SR-9009
How it works
How it works

AMPK is the low-energy alarm. Most things that activate it do so by making the cell short of energy.

How it works

SR9009 is not a peptide and not a SARM, though it is sold alongside both.

What it is
An exercise mimetic that got through a phase 2a trial and then went quiet.
A body clock drug sold as a workout replacement, with an oral absorption problem.
Status
Research only
Research only
Typical dose
400 mg per day
single fixed dose
20–30 mg per day
How often
Once daily in the trial
Not established
Stays active
Long in rodents, unverified in humans
Nothing published
Dose comes from
Clinical trial protocol
Community practice
Cycled?
Continuous in the one human trial Clinical trial protocol
Not established No established range
What it does
Drug class
Pan-AMPK activator (oral, not a peptide)
REV-ERB agonist (small molecule)
Used for
An oral AMPK activator sold as an exercise mimetic, with one real human trial behind it and nothing since.
Sold orally for endurance, fat loss and metabolic effects.
Receptors hit
—
—
Numbers
Full dose line
400 mg per day
Research only
Why that cycle
The phase 2a trial ran it daily for 28 days alongside metformin, with no break. Nothing longer has been published, so there is no evidence either way about extended use.
No schedule has been studied for this compound in people.
Weight / effect
Not measured in a trial
Not measured in a trial
Chain length
Not disclosed
Not disclosed
Common vial
—
—
Before you start
Route
By mouth (oral)
By mouth (oral)
Do not use if
Pregnancy and breastfeeding
Taking metformin or other glucose-lowering drugs, without medical supervision, since the trial combined them deliberately
Any condition affecting blood sugar control
Banned in drug-tested sport
Pregnancy or breastfeeding
Anyone competing in drug-tested sport
Anyone who wants established safety data, because none exists for this compound in humans

What separates them

Proof behind the dose. ATX-304 has a dose from a clinical trial protocol. SR9009 has a range that comes from community practice, with no published human study behind it.

What doesn't differ: They are both taken the same way (by mouth) and aimed at the same thing (endurance & fat loss). Neither has a measured effect size from a published trial, so there is no number to rank them on.

Difference map
Each column keeps its compound color below. A shared gray row means the same answer; colored cells show where they split.
ATX-304 (O-304)
SR9009 (Stenabolic)
PROOF
Clinical trial protocol
Community practice

What people actually report

ATX-304 (O-304)

  • One published human trial exists, it was small, and it was a proof-of-concept study in people already taking metformin.
  • AMPK activators are banned in drug-tested sport as metabolic modulators, the same class as AICAR.
  • Vendor CAS numbers and salt forms are inconsistent between sellers, so identity is not something to take on trust.
Stop and get help if
  • Signs of low blood sugar such as shakiness, sweating, confusion or a pounding heartbeat
  • Persistent vomiting or severe stomach pain

SR9009 (Stenabolic)

  • The effect data comes from injected animals while the product is sold as an oral capsule.
  • Banned in drug-tested sport.
Stop and get help if
  • Signs of an allergic reaction, including spreading hives, facial or throat swelling, or trouble breathing
  • Anything unusual, since there is no known safety profile to compare it against

Side effects are what users and trials report most often, not a complete list. Anything sudden, spreading, or breathing-related is an emergency regardless of which compound caused it.

People also compare

This comparison does not cover cost, long-term safety, or how you personally will respond. Effect figures come from separate trials in different populations and are not always directly comparable to each other. Nothing here is medical advice or a recommendation to use any of these. Talk to a clinician about your own situation.

Commonly confused peptides

Long-form breakdowns of the pairs people confuse most, traced to primary sources.

Metabolic and weight loss

CT-388 vs Zovaglutide

Weekly dual-receptor CT-388 and monthly GLP-1 zovaglutide have not been compared head to head; their trial results use different measures and follow-up periods.

Read comparison ›
Metabolic and weight loss

Semaglutide vs Liraglutide

In STEP 8, semaglutide produced more weight loss than liraglutide; liraglutide offers generic availability and daily dosing.

Read comparison ›
Muscle

ACE-031 vs GDF-8

Not two alternatives: ACE-031 is a drug built to neutralise GDF-8, the protein better known as myostatin. One has human trial data; the other is the brake itself.

Read comparison ›
Muscle

Follistatin vs ACE-031

ACE-031 built muscle but was stopped for vascular side effects. Follistatin protein has not been tested by injection in people.

Read comparison ›
Metabolic and weight loss

Liraglutide vs Semaglutide vs Tirzepatide vs Retatrutide

One receptor, then two, then three, and the numbers climb with them. Only two of the three steps have a head to head behind them.

Read comparison ›
Growth hormone

HGH vs Sermorelin

Distributing HGH for anti-aging is a federal felony carrying five years. Sermorelin lost to it commercially in 2008 and can still be legally compounded.

Read comparison ›
Muscle

IGF-1 LR3 vs IGF-1 DES

Neither has a single published human trial, and sources give LR3's half-life as anywhere from 6 to 30 hours. There is an FDA approved IGF-1, and it is neither of these.

Read comparison ›
Healing and recovery

Thymosin Alpha-1 vs LL-37

One is approved in 35 countries and its largest trial found nothing. The other has never been injected in a published study.

Read comparison ›
Metabolic and weight loss

Cagrilintide vs Semaglutide

Both were tested in the same trial, in the same people, over the same 68 weeks. Semaglutide won on weight, and the combination beat both while coming in below their sum.

Read comparison ›
Metabolic and weight loss

Semaglutide vs Tirzepatide

Tirzepatide won the head-to-head at 20.2 percent against 13.7. The 47 percent figure everyone quotes is relative; the absolute gap is 6.5 points, from an open-label trial.

Read comparison ›
Metabolic and weight loss

Retatrutide vs Tirzepatide

Retatrutide's 28.3 percent is being set against tirzepatide's 22.5 percent. Different trials, different lengths, and no trial yet comparing the two directly.

Read comparison ›
Sexual and hormonal

PT-141 vs Kisspeptin

Both are sold for sex. One works on desire and is FDA approved, the other works on hormones and stops working within two weeks.

Read comparison ›
Longevity

MOTS-c vs SS-31

One has an FDA approval and a failed Phase 3. The other has never been given to a person in a published study.

Read comparison ›
Growth hormone

Tesamorelin vs CJC-1295

Two GHRH analogs tested for the same condition. One completed two Phase 3 trials and got approved. The other's Phase 2 was halted in 2006 and never restarted.

Read comparison ›
Growth hormone

Tesamorelin vs HGH

Both are FDA approved. Tesamorelin asks your pituitary for growth hormone and HGH is the hormone itself, and only one is a felony to distribute off-label.

Read comparison ›
Skin and repair

Melanotan I vs Melanotan II

Not two versions of one compound. One is an FDA approved implant for a rare disease, the other is approved nowhere and warned against by four regulators.

Read comparison ›
Longevity

Epitalon vs MOTS-c

Two longevity peptides with no published human trial between them. Epitalon's famous human data belongs to a bovine extract, and MOTS-c is something your body already makes.

Read comparison ›
Longevity

Glutathione vs NAD+

Both are sold as injections. NAD+ cannot enter cells intact, and a six month trial found oral glutathione raising body stores the injection is meant to fix.

Read comparison ›
Cognitive and mood

Noopept vs Semax

Two Russian medicines no Western regulator has assessed. Semax is a seven amino acid peptide; Noopept is not a peptide at all.

Read comparison ›
Cognitive and mood

Semax vs Selank

Same Russian lab, same seven amino acids, built for different problems: Semax for alertness, Selank for anxiety.

Read comparison ›
Skin and repair

GHK-Cu vs Matrixyl

Two topical skin peptides with very different evidence: one carries copper, one carries a fat tail, and the most sold version of Matrixyl is built on the same tripeptide as GHK-Cu.

Read comparison ›
Healing and recovery

BPC-157 vs TB-500

Both are sold for tendon and muscle repair. BPC-157's human trials were enemas for ulcerative colitis, and TB-500's trials did not even use TB-500.

Read comparison ›
Healing and recovery

BPC-157 vs KPV

BPC-157's Phase 2 results were never published. KPV has no human trial; neither was tested as an injection for the uses it is sold for.

Read comparison ›
Growth hormone

CJC-1295 with DAC vs without DAC

One name, two drugs: one has a measured half-life and three published human trials, the other has never been tested in a person.

Read comparison ›
Growth hormone

Ipamorelin vs CJC-1295

They act on different receptors and are usually sold in the same vial. Each has human trials; the combination everyone buys has none.

Read comparison ›
Growth hormone

MK-677 vs Ipamorelin

Same receptor, a pill against an injection. MK-677 has far more human data, and that is exactly why we know more about what is wrong with it.

Read comparison ›
Healing and recovery

KLOW vs GLOW

These are not two products. One contains the other: KLOW is GLOW plus KPV, and neither blend has ever been tested as a blend.

Read comparison ›
Growth hormone

Sermorelin vs Ipamorelin

Two growth hormone peptides sold side by side. One was an approved drug and can still be compounded on prescription. The other was voted down in October 2024.

Read comparison ›
Sexual and hormonal

Enclomiphene vs HCG vs Gonadorelin vs Kisspeptin

Three sit on one hormone chain and the fourth skips it. The one with the best trial evidence was rejected by the FDA in 2015 and abandoned.

Read comparison ›
Healing and recovery

Thymosin Alpha-1 vs Thymosin Beta-4 vs TB-500

Two are unrelated proteins sharing a name by accident. The third is seven amino acids taken from the second, and no trial has injected any of them.

Read comparison ›
Longevity

NAD+ vs NMN vs NR

Three points on one pathway: compare cellular uptake, human evidence and changing supplement rules.

Read comparison ›
Growth hormone

Sermorelin vs Tesamorelin vs Ipamorelin vs CJC-1295

Three act on the GHRH receptor and one copies ghrelin. Only tesamorelin is approved, and the two with the weakest outcome data were both voted down by the FDA in late 2024.

Read comparison ›
Metabolic and weight loss

GLP-1 agonists compared

Twenty compounds act on the GLP-1 receptor. Eight are FDA approved. Most trial doses are not the same thing as a label dose. Here is what separates them.

Read comparison ›

33 published

Compare is one of the free tools on the site. See all tools.