dr.dosingreferenceResearch Reference
← All compounds
Comparison

BPC-157 vs TB-500

How they differ on evidence quality, dosing schedule, half-life and cost.

Side by side
BPC-157TB-500
Evidence gradeDNo completed human trialsDNo completed human trials
Studied forBody repair and recovery peptideRecovery and healing peptide
Half-lifeNot well characterized in humansNot well characterized in humans
ScheduleOnce or twice daily, subcutaneousOne to two times weekly, subcutaneous
Amount in research250–500 mcg daily2–2.5 mg weekly
Vial sizes sold5 mg, 10 mg5 mg, 10 mg
Cost$1.96 per dose$16.20 per dose
What the evidence actually supports

On evidence quality these two sit level, both graded D. No completed human trials. Early-stage laboratory research only. For TB-500: No completed trials of the fragment itself. Related thymosin beta-4 has early human studies. Nothing in the published record separates them, so a choice between them comes down to what is being studied and how it is dosed, and not to one having better support than the other.

An evidence grade describes how strong the research is, and it is not a safety rating or a recommendation. A higher grade on an approved drug does not make a research-use version of it approved.

How each one works

BPC-157

BPC-157 is a synthetic string of 15 amino acids derived from a protein found in gastric juice. Research suggests it speeds healing of tendon, muscle and gut tissue, and it seems to work partly by promoting new blood vessel growth and by acting on the nitric oxide and growth factor pathways. The human picture is still blank, since controlled human trials have not been published.

TB-500

TB-500 is a synthetic piece of thymosin beta 4, a protein involved in cell movement and repair. It is linked to actin regulation, new blood vessel growth and lower inflammation, which is why it is studied for wound and injury repair. As with BPC-157, there are no published human trials.

What each is studied for

BPC-157

  • Studied for tendon, ligament and muscle recovery after injury.
  • Studied for protecting the gut lining and supporting ulcer healing.
  • Studied for new blood-vessel growth and better blood supply at wound sites.
  • Research points to activity on nitric oxide and growth-factor pathways.

TB-500

  • Studied for faster wound healing.
  • Studied for new blood-vessel growth and cell migration during repair.
  • Studied for tissue and cell survival after reduced blood flow.
  • Research links it to actin regulation, which supports cell movement in healing.
Reported side effects

BPC-157

  • Human safety data are essentially absent, so risks are poorly characterized.
  • Not an approved drug, and product purity and identity vary widely.
  • Injection-site reactions are plausible from parenteral use.
  • Long-term effects and any cancer-relevant blood-vessel signals in humans are unknown.

TB-500

  • No controlled human safety data for the TB-500 fragment as sold.
  • Its blood-vessel-promoting activity raises a theoretical concern around tumor growth.
  • Injection-site reactions and fatigue are reported anecdotally.
  • Unregulated product quality means dose and identity are uncertain.
Common questions
Which has better evidence, BPC-157 or TB-500?

Neither. Both are graded D on our four-point scale, so the published record does not separate them.

How do the dosing schedules differ?

BPC-157: Once or twice daily, subcutaneous. TB-500: One to two times weekly, subcutaneous.

How do their half-lives compare?

BPC-157: Not well characterized in humans. TB-500: Not well characterized in humans. Half-life is what the dosing frequency follows from.

Which costs more to run?

BPC-157 works out at about $4.90 per mg and TB-500 at about $7.20 per mg at list price, but the amounts used differ, so compare cost per dose rather than per vial. Price is not a quality signal.

Can BPC-157 and TB-500 be studied together?

Some research protocols pair compounds and some do not. There is no combined trial data for this pairing on file here, so treat any stacking claim you read elsewhere as untested.

Go deeper on either one
Important. This page is for research and educational use only. It is not medical advice, and neither compound is for human consumption.