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

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

/compare/sr9009-vs-atx-304
ComparisonSR9009 (Stenabolic)
Stenabolic · SR-9009
ATX-304 (O-304)
O-304 · ATX304
How it works
How it works

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

How it works

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

What it is
A body clock drug sold as a workout replacement, with an oral absorption problem.
An exercise mimetic that got through a phase 2a trial and then went quiet.
Status
Research only
Research only
Typical dose
How often
Not established
Daily in the trial
Stays active
Nothing published
Long in rodents, unverified in humans
Dose comes from
No established range
No established range
Cycled?
Not established No established range
Continuous in the one human trial Clinical trial protocol
What it does
Drug class
REV-ERB agonist (small molecule)
Pan-AMPK activator (oral, not a peptide)
Used for
Sold orally for endurance, fat loss and metabolic effects.
An oral AMPK activator sold as an exercise mimetic, with one real human trial behind it and nothing since.
Receptors hit
Numbers
Full dose line
Research only
No established dose outside the trial
Why that cycle
No schedule has been studied for this compound in people.
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.
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 or breastfeeding
Anyone competing in drug-tested sport
Anyone who wants established safety data, because none exists for this compound in humans
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

What separates them

Proof behind the dose. Every dose here comes from community practice. Not one is backed by a published human study, which is worth knowing before you read the numbers as if they were equivalent.

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.
SR9009 (Stenabolic)
ATX-304 (O-304)
PROOF
No established range
No established range

What people actually report

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

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

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.

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

Retatrutide vs Tirzepatide

Retatrutide's 28.3 percent is being set against tirzepatide's 22.5 percent. Different trials, different lengths, and one of the numbers comes from a press release.

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 ›
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 ›
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 ›
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 ›

16 published

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