BPC-157 vs TB-500: Two Research Peptides, Two Evidence Records

How we built this table

The identity, regulatory, anti-doping, study-count and supplier rows come from our substance records. The editorial rows were compiled from FDA's 2026 briefing documents on each substance ^{Source [1] Source [2]}, published studies and reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov records, all checked on October 25, 2026. The comparison is informational. It is not a ranking, and it does not suggest that either substance is suitable for personal use.

Two unrelated molecules, often sold together

BPC-157 is a synthetic peptide of 15 amino acids. FDA describes it as a fragment of a protein called body protection compound, or BPC, originally isolated from human gastric juice and first described in the early 1990s ^{Source [1]}. TB-500, as FDA describes it, is a synthetic fragment of seven amino acids, positions 17 to 23 of the 43-amino-acid protein thymosin beta-4, with an acetyl group attached at one end. FDA reports that a veterinary preparation called TB-500 appeared in 2011 and was marketed for performance in horse and greyhound racing ^{Source [2]}.

Both names leave form questions open. FDA treats BPC-157 free base and BPC-157 acetate as different ingredients and notes that most studies do not say which form they used ^{Source [1]}. For TB-500, FDA notes that many websites call it a synthetic version of thymosin beta-4 and states that the two are not the same substance ^{Source [2]}. Our guide to TB-500 and thymosin beta-4 explains why that matters when reading a study.

FDA's BPC-157 review also found websites offering BPC-157 and TB-500 combined in a single product ^{Source [1]}. Being sold together does not mean they were developed or tested together.

Where each evidence record comes from

BPC-157

Most BPC-157 research is in rodents. The studies FDA summarizes report protection against gut and liver injuries in rats and faster healing of cut tendons. FDA cautions that dose-response relationships were not established, that the molecular targets have not been identified, and that the mechanisms remain poorly understood. Researchers have proposed explanations such as new blood vessel growth, more growth factor signaling, less inflammation and effects on nitric oxide ^{Source [1]}. A 2025 systematic review in musculoskeletal medicine included 35 preclinical studies and one clinical study, and found no clinical safety data ^{Source [3]}.

The human record is small. A 2026 systematic review found three eligible studies with 30 participants in total, none with a control group, and rated the certainty of evidence as very low ^{Source [4]}. The three were a retrospective knee-pain chart review ^{Source [5]}, a pilot study in 12 women with interstitial cystitis ^{Source [6]} and a two-person intravenous safety pilot ^{Source [7]}. Our BPC-157 research guide covers each one.

TB-500

FDA found no published article in which TB-500 was given to people, and no nonclinical toxicity studies of it ^{Source [2]}. Most of what exists is analytical and cell work. In a 2024 study, researchers tracked how TB-500 breaks down in human serum, in laboratory enzyme systems and in rats, then tested the parent peptide and its breakdown products on cultured fibroblasts. Only one breakdown product significantly sped the closure of scratch wounds, and the authors suggest that earlier reports of wound-healing activity may reflect that product rather than TB-500 itself ^{Source [8]}.

FDA adds that TB-500 contains the region of thymosin beta-4 known for binding actin, a protein that shapes cells and helps them move, but that it remains to be determined whether actin binding explains the activity reported for the fragment. Results with the non-acetylated fragment cannot be assumed to apply to TB-500, because acetylation changes how a peptide behaves ^{Source [2]}.

Studied side by side

A 2026 study in 32 rats with surgically cut and repaired Achilles tendons compared BPC-157, TB-500, the two together and a control group. The TB-500 group differed significantly from controls on the force the tendon withstood and on some tissue scores; the BPC-157 group's differences on those measures did not reach significance; and combining them added nothing beyond either alone. The authors describe it as an exploratory rat study, and the abstract calls TB-500 "synthetic thymosin beta-4", a description FDA says confuses two different substances, so the exact molecule tested is not clear from the abstract ^{Source [9]}.

In people, our PubMed search on October 25, 2026 found no controlled study of the two together ^{Source [10]}. In the knee-pain chart review, four of the participants received BPC-157 together with a substance the authors call thymosin beta-4 (TB4), with no comparison group ^{Source [5]}.

Registered trials

We counted three ClinicalTrials.gov records for BPC-157. A 2015 phase 1 trial of an oral tablet in healthy volunteers has an unknown status and no posted results ^{Source [11]}. A completed single-group study of a dietary supplement gummy containing BPC-157 had no comparison group and has posted no results ^{Source [12]}. A small randomized pilot comparing BPC-157 with a saline sham after rotator cuff surgery was not yet recruiting ^{Source [13]}.

We did not count a 2026 phase 2 record for hamstring strains ^{Source [14]}. Its sponsor's other 2026 records include one that describes itself as a fictional example, which is also the only registry entry we found that names TB-500 ^{Source [15]}, and others labeled as mock or example studies ^{Source [17]}. Apart from that record, the trials we found concern full-length thymosin beta-4, a different molecule ^{Source [16]}. A registered trial is a plan, not a result; see how to read a clinical trial listing.

What the table does not show

Neither evidence record shows that either peptide works or is safe in people. FDA's compounding safety page says both may pose a risk of immune reactions by certain routes, and for TB-500 it points to aggregation and peptide-related impurities ^{Source [18]}. We do not give dosing, preparation or usage guidance, and research listings are not for personal use.