Ingredient or product comparison
GHK-Cu vs GHK-Cu Cosmetic: Formulation Comparison
Purity (HPLC) ≥98% 90–95% Lower purity = competing impurities destabilise copper chelation Storage Requirement -20°C, lyophilised powder Room temperature, aqueous solution Aqueous storage accelerates peptide hydrolysis and copper oxidation Copper Chelation Sta
This source-based comparison does not add ratings or recommend a winner.
- Purity (HPLC)
- ≥98%
- 90–95%
- Lower purity = competing impurities destabilise copper chelation
- Storage Requirement
- -20°C, lyophilised powder
- Room temperature, aqueous solution
- Aqueous storage accelerates peptide hydrolysis and copper oxidation
- Copper Chelation Stability (log K)
- >16 (pharmaceutically optimised)
- 12–14 (variable, not standardised)
- Lower stability = premature copper release, inactive free peptide
- Analytical Verification
- CoA with HPLC, MS, endotoxin
- Ingredient declaration only
- No verification of active peptide concentration in final product
- Dermal Penetration System
- Liposomal or niosomal encapsulation
- Simple emulsion base
- Encapsulation increases stratum corneum penetration 8–12×
- Regulatory Classification
- Research chemical (not for human use)
- Cosmetic ingredient (FDA 21 CFR 700)
- Cosmetic classification allows efficacy claims without clinical proof
- Cost per Gram (bulk peptide)
- $80–$150
- $15–$40
- Price reflects synthesis scale, purification level, QC rigor
- Shelf Life (unopened)
- 18–24 months at -20°C
- 12–24 months at 25°C
- Room-temp storage degrades 40–60% of copper content within 6 months
- Bottom Line
- Designed for reproducible bioactivity in controlled experiments. Prioritises peptide stability and tissue delivery
- Designed for consumer sensory appeal and shelf stability. Biological activity is secondary to formulation convenience
- Research-grade formulations achieve 3–5× higher fibroblast uptake and measurably greater collagen synthesis at identical stated concentrations