Stated plainly: retatrutide · 4 mg.
I have worked this out and I would like someone to find the error, because I suspect there is one.
My working so far, for the record, is below, and I am fairly sure the error is in the unit conversion rather than the algebra.
Where is my error, and what is the correct working?
4 mg a week is 208 mg a year and 17.3 mg in an average month — put every route on that denominator before comparing anything. Cost per milligram is the only figure that survives the comparison, because the presentations differ: a licensed pen prices a dose, a compounding pharmacy prices a vial, and a research supplier prices a mass. Divide each one's twelve-month cost by 208 mg and the three become the same number in the same unit. Then add what the cheapest route does not include — independent purity and content testing, the vials you discard, and the postage — because a route that needs testing to be trustworthy has that testing in its cost per milligram whether you account for it or not.
The honest answer is that the cheapest headline price is frequently not the cheapest outcome.
Worked example. Supplier A: £60 for a 10 mg vial, content 96 per cent, so 9.6 mg for £60, or £6.25/mg before carriage. Supplier B: £52 for the same nominal vial, content 88 per cent, so 8.8 mg for £52, or £5.91/mg. B still wins here, but the gap has narrowed from thirteen per cent on the label to five per cent in reality.
| Observation | Implication | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Lot number not on the vial | Certificate cannot be tied to your material | Photograph vial and certificate together |
| No method section | The number is not reproducible | Request column, gradient, wavelength |
| Purity to two decimals, no chromatogram | False precision | Request the trace |
| Test date before manufacture date | Certificate belongs to a different lot | Compare dates |
| Identical figures across lots | One certificate reused | Compare two lots side by side |
| “Sterile filtered” with no sterility test | Process claim substituted for a result | Ask for the sterility report |
Mechanically, dead-space loss is small with fixed-needle insulin syringes — a few microlitres per draw — and substantial with detachable-needle luer syringes at 35 to 100 microlitres. Across twenty draws that is up to two millilitres of solution.
Syringe dead-space volumes are published per design, with fixed-needle insulin syringes under 5 microlitres and conventional luer designs at 35 microlitres or more.
Larger orders reduce cost per milligram and increase exposure to a single lot, which is a real trade rather than a free win.
Decide whether you are optimising cost or confidence before you build the model.
edited 10 Apr 2025 by w_okoye — added the method parameters
Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.
Shop standardsAnswering this needs the order size, because carriage and testing amortise very differently across one vial and across ten.
Independent testing costs roughly the price of one to two vials at the services this community uses. On a two-vial order that is a fifty to a hundred per cent surcharge; on a twenty-vial order it is five per cent.
Cost per milligram is the wrong metric entirely if you are optimising for confidence rather than price, and it is worth saying which one you are doing before you build the spreadsheet.
Carriage on international consignments scales sub-linearly with weight, which is the quantitative basis for order consolidation.
Fixed-needle syringes save more peptide than most price differences do.
On the detail: wastage from expired reconstituted vials is a real line item and nobody includes it.
Carriage amortises across the order. Twenty-five pounds of carriage on one vial is £2.50/mg on a 10 mg vial; on ten vials it is £0.25/mg. That single term explains most of the case for larger, less frequent orders.
The full calculation: (unit price + carriage share + testing share) ÷ (nominal mg × measured content fraction × (1 − dead-space and wastage fraction)). Every term after the first is routinely omitted.
Independent testing prices at the services this community uses are published and are stable enough to model.
Larger orders are cheaper per milligram and concentrate lot risk. Price both.
Put another way, this is a spreadsheet question and doing it properly changes conclusions more often than people expect.
Change one number and it reverses: if B assays at 82 per cent, that is 8.2 mg for £52, or £6.34/mg, and the cheaper vial is now the more expensive peptide.
The caveat is that optimising cost per milligram optimises for the wrong thing if documentation and consistency are what you actually need.
Divide by measured content, not by label claim. That is the whole correction.
edited 10 Apr 2025 by Dr_Signe_Baldursdottir — reworded for clarity after a comment
The short version: unit price, carriage, testing, dead-space loss and wastage. The first is the one everybody compares and rarely the one that decides it.
Wastage from a reconstituted vial discarded at the end of its in-use period is a genuine cost, and it is a function of the diluent volume chosen at reconstitution rather than of anything the supplier did.
Published content assay results across the independent services show nominal and measured content differing by one to ten per cent, which is the term that makes label-price comparisons unreliable.
Include carriage and testing as per-milligram terms. They dominate small orders.
edited 26 Apr 2025 by harriet_lonsdale — added the citation requested in comments
Ask PeptideStack is a static archive. Posting is closed, but the norms are worth stating: answer the question that was asked, show your working, cite the trial or the certificate, and say plainly where the evidence runs out.