Eleven signals. One public score.
Every vendor that matches your compound and region is scored against an 11-signal rubric. Each signal runs 0 to 100. The final score is the weighted total. We don't gatekeep what you see. Vendors below the routable line surface with their score and a risk disclosure block. You decide.
The 70/100 threshold is the bright line. Vendors at or above 70 are routable: Panya links you through with full affiliate disclosure. Vendors below 70 surface with their score and a mandatory risk disclosure (COA reliability, customs reports, payment method, refund posture, why we don't recommend them). The rubric is the same whether the vendor is a prescription telehealth clinic for Mounjaro or a research-grade peptide supplier shipping BPC-157. Cold-chain quality, COA disclosure, identity, support practice. Those signals apply equally. We do not lower the bar by compound class.
Panya earns a flat affiliate rate regardless of which vendor you pick. We do not get paid more for recommending a more expensive vendor or a higher-commission vendor. If the rubric says the cheaper option is better for your case, we say so. You decide your risk profile; we surface the data honestly.
The rubric is the mechanics. The editorial stance behind it (coverage over selectivity, risk-as-product, regulator-neutral, no gatekeeping, AI-operated) is documented at /principles.
What gets scored.
Same 11 signals on every vendor scorecard at /vendor. Slugs + labels match exactly. The "Worked examples" block under each signal shows real catalog entries at low, mid, and high bands · drawn from live data, not curated for the page.
Certificate of Analysis per batch from a third-party lab. No COA published = low score. Self-reported COA = mid. Third-party HPLC + LC-MS per batch with current dates = high.
historic COAs flagged by independent reviewers as missing verification codes and client fields typical of legitimate lab reports
For peptides requiring 2 to 8 degrees Celsius handling: documented chain of custody from manufacturer to patient. No evidence = low. JCI hospital pharmacy + named shipping protocol = high.
Whether the channel includes a prescription layer enforced by a regulator. Research-chem vendors structurally score near zero here · the channel cannot offer what an Rx channel offers. Multi-state-licensed Rx pharmacy = high.
Independent confirmation that the labeled compound is what is in the vial. Janoshik or equivalent third-party verification = high. Self-reported only = mid. No verification or known counterfeit risk = low.
Concentration claims match assay results within tolerance. 503B compounders subject to FDA inspection score high; research-chem with consistent COA spot-checks score mid; vendors with documented dosing inconsistencies score low.
Sterile-injectable safety signal. 503B + LAL endotoxin testing per batch published = high. 503A pharmacy compliance = mid. Research-chem rarely publishes endotoxin = low.
Published policy for broken vial, wrong product, dud lot. Refund or replacement SLA in writing = high. Case-by-case discretion = mid. No policy or operational halt = low.
No catalog vendor in this band today.
How honestly the vendor labels what it is. A clinic that says "clinic" and an Rx pharmacy that says "Rx" and a research-chem seller that says "research-only" all score high. Aesthetic-spa front for an Rx-grade flow scores mid. Channel hidden behind soft language scores low.
Pre-sale inquiry handled within 24 hours by a named human. Post-sale support handled within 48 hours. Ghost-after-payment = 0. International-patient ops at a JCI hospital = high.
Per-mg or per-month price published on the public site. Hidden behind a quote-on-request wall = mid. Price published with full per-dose-step breakdown = high.
Whether the vendor sustains a returning patient base over time. Years in operation, named clinical staff continuity, repeat-customer evidence. Halted operations or rebrand churn = low.
What caps a vendor below routable.
Any of the seven triggers below caps a vendor's score below the 70/100 routable line. The vendor still surfaces in your search results with its score and a mandatory risk disclosure block. We don't gatekeep what you see. Two triggers (criminal conviction, lab-verified counterfeit) result in non-publication for legal reasons. The rest surface with disclosure.
- 1FDA warning letter, DEA action, or documented regulatory enforcementSurface: score capped below routable; risk disclosure attached
- 2Criminal conviction tied to the vendor or its named principalsSurface: non-publication (defamation risk on naming)
- 3Verified counterfeit or mislabeled product (lab-confirmed, not rumor)Surface: non-publication (defamation risk on naming)
- 4Permanent closure (site dead more than 90 days + no owner response)Surface: removed from active rotation; archived scorecard kept for history
- 5Systematic fake-review patterns (forensically confirmed, not inferred)Surface: score capped below routable; risk disclosure attached
- 6Vendor refused COA request more than twice without credible reasonSurface: score capped below routable; risk disclosure attached
- 7Vendor ghosts payment for 30+ days and no refundSurface: score capped below routable; risk disclosure attached
Are we wrong about your vendor?
If you run a vendor and believe your Rubric Score is wrong, send evidence to partner@panya.health. We re-score on evidence, not on volume. Pay-to-rank does not exist here. If a sub-routable trigger fired on your vendor and you have proof it was wrong, the same address is where the dispute lands.
We earn a small commission when you buy through recommended vendors. That is how this stays free. Vendors rank by quality signals, not paid placement.