FOXO4-DRI for sale: what is genuinely on the market
The physical product is uniform across suppliers. A 10 mg vial of lyophilised powder under a crimped aluminium seal, sold for laboratory use, with a purity figure above 98%.
There is no second strength, which removes the per-milligram comparison usually available between vial sizes. Ten milligrams is a convenient laboratory quantity and an awkward one for anything else, which tells you who the product was packaged for.
Two variants should stop you rather than prompt further research. Blends pairing FOXO4-DRI with other compounds make any single ingredient's contribution impossible to isolate. Pre-reconstituted solution is the clearer warning: peptides are freeze-dried for shipping precisely because they degrade in solution, so a supplier shipping wet material is either not thinking about stability or relying on you not to.
Which claims a document could actually contradict
This is the consumer-protection exercise that matters, and it is quick. Take each claim on the page and ask what evidence could disprove it.
Most cannot be disproved by anything, which is a property of how the claim is worded rather than evidence that it is true. "Third-party tested" with no laboratory named is unfalsifiable. "Pharma grade" refers to a standard that does not exist for a compound with no pharmaceutical approval anywhere.
Two claims are different. A purity figure can be checked against a chromatogram tied to a lot number. A net content figure can be checked against a quantitative assay. The first is often provided. The second almost never is, and it is the one that determines what you actually received.
| Claim | What would disprove it | Checkable? |
|---|---|---|
| "99%+ purity" | A chromatogram showing otherwise | Yes, if lot-tied |
| "10 mg per vial" | A quantitative assay showing less | Yes, and rarely published |
| "Third-party tested" | Nothing, if no lab is named | No |
| "Verified identity" | Mass spectrometry mismatch | Partly |
| "Endotoxin free" | An LAL screen on your batch | Batch-scoped only |
| "Pharma grade" | Nothing. No standard exists here | No |
Listing claims and what could disprove each
Where this vendor's certificates disagree with each other
Ascension publishes measured net content, which is unusual, and publishing it exposed something a less transparent supplier would never have revealed.
Kovera Labs certified batch 55-05260628 at 99.411% purity with net content of 11.41 mg. MZ Biolabs analysed lot 55-01260229 at 99.97% purity with net content of 8.30 mg. Both vials carried a 10 mg label.
One batch came in about 14% over the labelled mass and the other about 17% under, behind two excellent purity results. That is not a contradiction: purity describes composition and net content describes quantity, and only the second one moved.
The certificates also differ in scope. The June batch carries endotoxin and sterility screens; the January batch carries neither. Testing scope belongs to a batch, so a page claiming this product is endotoxin tested is generalising from one certificate to material it does not cover.
| Property | Kovera Labs | MZ Biolabs |
|---|---|---|
| Batch | 55-05260628 | 55-01260229 |
| Purity | 99.411% | 99.97% |
| Net content, 10 mg label | 11.41 mg | 8.30 mg |
| Endotoxin | Pass | Not performed |
| Sterility | No growth | Not performed |
The two published certificates
What no listing can offer
Whatever the page says, the compound behind it has never been administered to a human being in a registered clinical trial.
There is no approved indication, no established dose, no measured half-life in people and no safety profile. Every efficacy result comes from mice, rats or cells in culture.
For the same reading applied to other compounds, see our epithalon guide and BPC-157 guide. Our affiliate disclosure sets out how we are paid.