Vendor Intelligence Report: Andy Peps Studio

Published 3 Jul 2026. 26-page investigative report on who is behind Andy Peps Studio: corporate records, ownership, affiliate networks, and the vendor's lab-testing record. The first 4 pages are free to read on this page.

Researched and published by Finnrick Analytics. Reports draw on corporate records, affiliate-network analysis, and Finnrick's own laboratory testing record; vendors can challenge findings through the formal objections process at finnrick.com/vendor-support/objections.

Executive summary

Across 36 Finnrick lab tests, Andy Peps Studio records 33 pass / 3 fail, a 92% overall pass rate. The record is encouraging but uneven: Tirzepatide is the cleanest signal, Retatrutide remains strong but not failure-free, while BPC-157 and Tesamorelin sit in a lower-confidence tier. The report also shows why the public rating needs product-by-product interpretation, including how stricter grading changes the read.

The identity picture is less tidy than the lab headline. APS has a visible forum reputation, recent positive fulfillment comments, and sponsor/vendor presence, but public buyer materials do not identify a registered legal counterparty, governing venue, or synthesis facility behind the COAs. The strongest operational risk is channel authenticity: APS publicly disavowed an APS-branded shopping site that remained active, displayed a changing contact setup, expanded its catalog, and later showed a WHOIS update.

That contradiction is not resolved in the public evidence, and the report does not pretend it is. The dossier tracks whether buyers may be looking at a sophisticated copycat, a hijacked or formerly controlled asset, or a messy brand-channel transition. It also maps a technically linked retail channel selling Retatrutide kits, where APS lab performance should not be assumed to transfer without a current batch identifier and direct lab verification.

Inside the full report:

  • Appendix A laboratory table plus methodology-divergence and trajectory charts for the Finnrick-tested catalog
  • GLP-1 Forum announcement and vendor-review exhibits documenting the storefront disavowal, contact changes, and buyer sentiment
  • WHOIS and hosting analysis for the APS-branded domain, including the post-disavowal update record
  • Brand-network analysis covering APS, BioSynova Peptides, Love Moore Peptides, and chandyforlife.com
  • COA/manufacturer-field review, supply-chain provenance notes, and current-batch verification checklist
  • Material buyer-risk matrix separating product-selection risk from channel, counterparty, and retail-channel opacity

Risk assessment

  • Website-disavowal and impersonation-control risk — high: APS publicly stated it has no shopping website and disavowed apspeptide.com while that site stayed active and WHOIS-updated, leaving buyers without a reliable canonical channel.
  • Lower-confidence product selection risk: BPC-157 and Tesamorelin — medium: BPC-157 has a 60.2% Finnrick rating over 6 tests and Tesamorelin has a 51.64% Finnrick rating over 4 tests, materially weaker than APS Tirzepatide and Retatrutide.
  • Supply-chain provenance and COA-manufacturer opacity — medium: APS presents as a China trading company, while COAs list APS/Andy Peps Studio as manufacturer rather than the actual synthesis facility.
  • Legal-counterparty and buyer-recourse risk — medium: Buyer-facing terms and forum materials name no registered entity, address, company number, court, or specific governing jurisdiction.
  • Affiliated retail-channel opacity risk — medium: Love Moore Peptides appears technically linked and sells Retatrutide kits with limited visible batch/COA data, so APS lab performance should not be assumed transferable.