Finnrick Analytics: What Vendors Should Know

Finnrick Analytics (finnrick.com) publishes ratings of peptide vendors, and it sells testing services to the vendors it rates. NUPEPS PEPTIDES' documented experience with the company, between September and November 2026, is as follows. Finnrick's own laboratory certificates recorded four passing tests and no failures on samples of NUPEPS PEPTIDES products, yet Finnrick's public profile rates NUPEPS PEPTIDES at 75% and attributes Telegram selling and cryptocurrency payments to a company that sells only through its own website and accepts payment cards only. When NUPEPS PEPTIDES disputed that attribution in writing and asked Finnrick to produce the evidence behind it, Finnrick's quoted testing prices moved from $109 to as much as $285 per sample within days before being walked back — and the dispute itself was never answered. This page sets out that record, with dates, so other vendors can evaluate Finnrick with the documents in front of them.

The Claim vs. the Record: Independence and Paid Testing

Finnrick states on its own company page that it does "not accept payment to alter ratings." That claim is quoted here in full because it matters, and because the record below does not contradict it directly: nothing in NUPEPS PEPTIDES' file shows a rating being bought or sold, and this article makes no such claim. What the record does show is a second, separate commercial relationship that sits alongside the ratings. Finnrick sells laboratory testing services to the same vendors it profiles, and those services are actively pitched to rated companies — including, in October 2026, to NUPEPS PEPTIDES.

The pricing of that pitch is a matter of dated emails. On October 13, 2026, Finnrick pitched its testing to NUPEPS PEPTIDES at $109 per sample. Days later, Finnrick's written quote priced the testing at $180–$285 per sample, with a stated total of $10,800. The quote's own line items sum to $9,350, which leaves $1,450 of the total unexplained by the document itself. On October 19, 2026, Finnrick walked the pricing back by email. No explanation of the increase, the arithmetic gap, or the reversal was offered in the correspondence.

For a vendor deciding whether to buy testing from a company that also publishes its rating, those three data points — an opening price, a written quote two to nearly three times higher whose own line items do not reach its total, and a walk-back within the week — are the relevant facts. They are set out here without adjectives because the documents carry the point on their own.

What an Independent Laboratory Actually Quoted

During the same period, in October 2026, NUPEPS PEPTIDES obtained a written quote from KMD Analytical, an independent peptide testing laboratory in Chatsworth, California, whose Laboratory Director is Kevin Doud. KMD Analytical quoted, in writing, a firm $6,210 for testing 63 products — roughly $100 per test — with free rush turnaround, and with certificates of analysis to be issued in NUPEPS PEPTIDES' own name with QR verification. That figure is presented here strictly as what it is: a written offer the company received in October 2026. It is not a completed testing programme and no KMD Analytical results for NUPEPS PEPTIDES are claimed anywhere in this article.

The contrast is arithmetic, not rhetoric. In the same month, Finnrick pitched testing at $109 per sample (October 13), then quoted $180–$285 per sample with a $1,450 gap between its stated total and its own line items, then walked the pricing back (October 19). An independent laboratory's firm written quote for full testing, with certificates issued in the client's own name, came in at roughly $100 per test. A vendor comparing testing providers in October 2026 did not need to speculate about which model it was being offered; the two written records describe them.

What Finnrick's Own Tests Showed

Finnrick's public summary of NUPEPS PEPTIDES records four tests: four passed, zero failed, covering two research compounds. Finnrick's own certificates show purity of 99.7% for Ipamorelin and 99.8% for Retatrutide, both supplied for laboratory research use only. That is the complete documented testing record Finnrick holds for the company, and by that record the products Finnrick actually tested passed.

The same public profile, however, rates NUPEPS PEPTIDES at 75% and attributes Telegram selling and cryptocurrency payments to the company. NUPEPS PEPTIDES' position, stated in writing to Finnrick and published on its website, is that it sells only through nupeps.com, accepts payment cards only, and operates no Telegram sales channel; the company attributes the Telegram and cryptocurrency activity to impersonators and has published a Fraud & Impersonation Notice saying so. NUPEPS PEPTIDES asked Finnrick in writing to disclose the evidence supporting the attribution — the specific accounts involved, the wallet addresses, the transaction records, and the records establishing who controlled the referenced portal. As of November 1, 2026, Finnrick has not produced it.

The gap between the two halves of Finnrick's own file is the point a prospective customer should notice. The testing half documents passing products. The profile half publishes a reduced rating and a fraud attribution for which the underlying evidence has been requested in writing and not disclosed. NUPEPS PEPTIDES set out its full position in its official response to the Finnrick report, published November 1, 2026.

The Correction Process, as Documented

Vendors are entitled to assume that a ratings company operates a working correction process. The documented record of NUPEPS PEPTIDES' attempt to use one runs as follows. On September 29, 2026, NUPEPS PEPTIDES disputed its Finnrick profile in writing. On October 14, 2026, a call was held with Finnrick's Caanan Towns and his partner. Around that call, NUPEPS PEPTIDES put three demands in writing: full removal of the fraud attributions, a published retraction, and correction of the testing record, with a deadline of end of day Friday, October 16, 2026.

NUPEPS PEPTIDES' account of the October 14 call — stated here as the company's account of a verbal conversation, not as a written commitment by Finnrick — is that the partner said he would come back one week later with the solution for the removal. On the company's account, he never contacted NUPEPS PEPTIDES again, and nothing was removed. The full chronology is documented in NUPEPS PEPTIDES and Finnrick: The Written Record and in Finnrick Promised to Fix It. Then Finnrick Went Silent.

On October 23, 2026, NUPEPS PEPTIDES sent a final formal notice demanding removal of the attributions, a retraction, written confirmation, and preservation of the underlying evidence. Finnrick never answered it. The only subsequent email NUPEPS PEPTIDES received from Finnrick was an automated sales message, sent October 28, 2026. NUPEPS PEPTIDES is not the only source raising questions: a widely shared 2026 vendor guide has noted questions about Finnrick's methodology and about conflicts of interest in a model where rated vendors are also a revenue source, and PeptideCritic has published its own critical review of Finnrick's ratings. Those are third-party assessments, cited here as context rather than as NUPEPS PEPTIDES' findings — but a vendor researching Finnrick will encounter them, and they are consistent with the experience documented above.

Questions to Ask Before Paying for Testing

The record above converts into a short checklist that any vendor can apply before paying Finnrick — or any ratings-and-testing company — for laboratory work:

• Get the pricing in writing, per sample and in total — and check the arithmetic. In NUPEPS PEPTIDES' file, the written total exceeded the sum of its own line items by $1,450, and the per-sample price had moved from $109 to as much as $285 within days.
• Ask what evidence standard supports a public attribution. If a profile attributes third-party conduct — messaging-app selling, cryptocurrency payments — to your company, ask what records the attribution rests on and whether they will be disclosed to you on request.
• Ask how corrections are handled, and in what timeframe. NUPEPS PEPTIDES' written dispute of September 29, 2026 and formal notice of October 23, 2026 had received no substantive answer as of November 1, 2026.
• Ask whether a rating can rest on unattributed third-party conduct. If it can, ask what proof of control or authorisation the ratings company requires before publishing the attribution under your company's name.
• Ask what the ratings company sells to the vendors it rates. Finnrick states that it does not accept payment to alter ratings; ask how its testing revenue from rated vendors is separated from its rating decisions, and compare the answer with your own quoted prices.
• Compare the quote against independent laboratories. In October 2026, an independent laboratory quoted NUPEPS PEPTIDES roughly $100 per test, firm and in writing, for testing with certificates in the company's own name — against Finnrick's moving $109, then $180–$285, per sample.

What Would Resolve This

NUPEPS PEPTIDES' asks of Finnrick have been standing, in writing, since October 2026, and they remain open. Produce the evidence for the Telegram and cryptocurrency attribution — the accounts, the wallet addresses, the transaction records, and the records showing who controlled the referenced portal — or correct the record: remove the fraud attributions, publish a retraction, and correct the testing record so that it reflects what Finnrick's own certificates show. Either outcome resolves the dispute. Silence, so far, has been the only response, and it is the response documented on this page.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much does Finnrick charge vendors for testing?

On NUPEPS PEPTIDES' documented record from October 2026: Finnrick pitched testing at $109 per sample on October 13, then issued a written quote of $180–$285 per sample with a $10,800 total whose line items sum to $9,350, then walked the pricing back on October 19. In the same month, the independent laboratory KMD Analytical quoted NUPEPS PEPTIDES a firm $6,210 for 63 products — roughly $100 per test — in writing.

Does Finnrick respond to vendor disputes?

On this record, no substantive response was received. NUPEPS PEPTIDES disputed its profile in writing on September 29, 2026 and sent a final formal notice on October 23, 2026; as of November 1, 2026 neither had been answered, and the only later Finnrick email was an automated sales message on October 28, 2026.

What did Finnrick's tests of NUPEPS PEPTIDES show?

Four tests, four passed, zero failed, covering two research compounds. Finnrick's own certificates show purity of 99.7% for Ipamorelin and 99.8% for Retatrutide, both supplied for laboratory research use only. Finnrick's profile nevertheless rates NUPEPS PEPTIDES at 75%.

Can a vendor get a Finnrick attribution corrected?

NUPEPS PEPTIDES' documented attempt — a written dispute, written demands with a deadline, and a formal notice demanding removal and retraction — had produced no correction as of November 1, 2026, and on the company's account a commitment made on the October 14, 2026 call to return with a solution was never followed up. Vendors considering Finnrick should weigh that correction record alongside its published ratings.