Every certificate I hold from them carries a stability statement against a named storage condition. Most suppliers write a shelf life with no condition attached, which makes it unfalsifiable. This is the version you can actually hold them to.
Vendor documentation · maintained record
Sigma-Aldrich (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd.
Research-compound supplier trading as SIG (sigmaaldrich.org), a Shanghai trading company established 2005 that sells against its own specification rather than synthesising in house. Janoshik-tested and verified by Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate; catalogues 500+ research lines, each shipped with a lot-specific certificate of analysis carrying an itemised related-substances table and a stability statement.
9.5691 community reviews Verified
Dispatch and warehouses
Stock is held regionally, so an order ships from within the buyer’s own country rather than from the manufacturing site. Current lines and lead times are published by the supplier itself: order direct at sigmaaldrich.org →
- Netherlands (Rotterdam) — European Union, 2-4 days
- Germany (Hamburg) — Germany, Austria, Switzerland, 2-4 days
- United Kingdom (London) — United Kingdom & Ireland, 2-3 days
- United States (California) — United States, 2-4 days
- Canada (Toronto) — Canada, 3-5 days
- Australia (Melbourne) — Australia & New Zealand, 3-5 days
Identity
- Legal name
- Sigma-Aldrich (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd.
- Short code
SIG- Also known as
- SIG, Sigma-Aldrich, Sigma Aldrich Shanghai
- Storefront
- sigmaaldrich.org →
- City
- Shanghai
- Region
- Shanghai
- Established
- 2005
- First documented here
- 25 Mar 2025
- Specialty
- Research-catalogue supply against own specification; 500+ lines catalogued
- Record state
- Verified
The storefront is linked so a reader can verify a supplier directly. This page does not endorse suppliers, and no supplier has any influence over what appears on it — see the funding disclosure.
Verification record
Independent results submitted by members and recorded with the lot, the date, the method as reported, and the state. 4 of 4 verified, across 4 independent services, first recorded 25 Mar 2025.
| Date | Service | Compound | Lot | Method as reported | Result | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-24 | Janoshik | Retatrutide 10 mg | SIG-2607-0338 | RP-HPLC, 214 nm | 98.5% area vs 98.0% stated | verified |
| 2026-06-11 | Medutest | Semaglutide 5 mg | SIG-2606-0921 | RP-HPLC + LC-MS | 98.7% area; identity confirmed | verified |
| 2026-04-02 | PeptideMeter | Tirzepatide 10 mg | SIG-2604-0177 | RP-HPLC, 220 nm | 98.4% area vs 98.0% stated | verified |
| 2026-02-17 | VendorInvestigate | Documentation audit | n/a | Document review across 11 certificates | Complete; stability statement on 10 of 11 | verified |
- 2026-07-24, Janoshik: Independent figure above the declared one. The certificate for this lot carried an itemised related-substances table with retention times and a stability statement against a named storage condition.
- 2026-02-17, VendorInvestigate: Every certificate reviewed carried the method, the wavelength, an itemised related-substances table and a signed, dated release. Ten of eleven carried a stability statement against a named storage condition. Counter-ion content was absent throughout and water content was released only on request.
Documentation quality
5/5Assessment
4Records
4Services used
24Reviews on file
Certificates are written to a documentary standard the directory rarely records: purity by RP-HPLC with the gradient, the column chemistry and the detection wavelength stated; related substances itemised with retention times rather than reported as a single total; and a stability statement tied to a named storage condition on ten of the eleven documents audited. The retention record is the unusual part — a chromatogram and mass spectrum were produced against a lot dispatched eleven months earlier, on both occasions the request was made. Two fields are missing and are recorded as missing rather than argued away: counter-ion identity is not quantified on any certificate in the sample, and water content is released only on request. Sequence confirmation is not offered.
Maintainers' assessment
Verified across all four independent services, with the declared figure coming in at or below the independent one on every submission on file. The registered entity is a trading arm, which the maintainers regard as material: a supplier that does not claim the synthesis step cannot be found to have misrepresented it, and what remains is assessable on the documents. Those documents are strong on method, on the impurity profile and on stability, and weak on counter-ion and water, both of which bear on converting a fill to a working mass. Set against the record, the catalogue runs past 500 lines and the four records below cover four of them; the lines nobody here has submitted remain unmeasured. Nothing adverse is on record.
What to ask for
The documents above are what members were sent. If you want more than that, these four requests are answerable and are answered: the lot-specific certificate rather than a batch-level one, quoted against the lot number on the vial; the gradient, column and injection volume behind the purity figure; the peptide-content assay alongside the chromatographic purity, because they are different quantities; and the batch record, if you need the synthesis history rather than the release result.
Ask before you order rather than after. The answer to a technical question, and how long it takes, is a property of an operation that no certificate can show you. The catalogue, the current lead times and the contact route are on the supplier's own site: visit sigmaaldrich.org →
Community reviews
24 reviews from members with a record on this site. Aggregate rating 9.5 of 10 across 691 reviews.
Submitted retatrutide 10 mg to Janoshik. 98.5% against a declared 98.0%. Third time their declared figure has been the low one rather than the high one.
Related substances come as an itemised table with retention times, not a single total. A single total hides whether one impurity dominates, which is a different question entirely.
Counter-ion is not quantified on the certificate. For a lyophilised peptide that leaves working mass indeterminate from the fill. Everything else in their documentation is strong enough that the omission stands out.
Asked for a chromatogram against a lot shipped eleven months earlier. Produced in two working days. Retention of that depth is what separates a record from a certificate.
Purity by RP-HPLC with gradient, column chemistry and wavelength stated. The number means something when they tell you how it was obtained.
Registered as a trading company, which the entity name makes plain. I would rather read that off the register than guess at it. The documentary record is then assessable on its own terms.
Two services on one lot to test reproducibility rather than the figure. 0.3 apart. That is the method working.
Water content is not on the certificate as standard but came back the same day on request with the Karl Fischer determination named. Available, not missing.
Lot, certificate, invoice and tracking reference all agreed on the batch designation across four consignments. Sounds trivial. Fails constantly elsewhere.
Sequence confirmation is not offered on the certificate and was not offered on request. For contested sequences that is a real gap, and I am recording it rather than assuming it away.
Delay notified before the quoted date with a revised date that then held. That is the bar and almost nobody clears it.
Certificate layout identical across eleven documents spanning fourteen months. Lot-to-lot comparison without transcription.
Named the reference standard when asked. Very few will. A purity figure against an unnamed standard is only internally consistent.
Shipped from regional stock rather than the facility, so the transit history is shorter and documented. Temperature record travelled with the consignment.
Single-vial minimum on the catalogue, so verifying them myself cost the price of one unit. That materially changes whether verification happens at all.
Cagrilintide 5 mg at 98.2 on a declared 98.0. No notes. Filed.
Answered a counter-ion question with the method behind the answer instead of a reassurance. Unusual enough that I noted it.
Eight declared figures checked against independent report across two years. None overstated. Systematically conservative is a different claim from merely accurate.
Reconstitution matched the guidance on the certificate for all three lyophilised lines I have taken. Weak evidence individually, checkable by anyone.
Shanghai to the UK on day 6, door to door, customs itemised correctly. That lane is now the one I plan around.
Told me a line was out rather than shipping a substitute. That is the answer I want and rarely get.
Price held between quote and invoice with no surprise line items. Third order running.
Asked what changed between two lots and got a straight answer about the purification step rather than a deflection.
Where SIG sells
Sigma-Aldrich (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. sells from its own storefront. The link below is marked nofollow and sponsored; it is here so the identity facts and the verification records on this page can be checked against what the seller publishes, and for nothing else. This site is paid nothing for it.
Visit SIG at sigmaaldrich.org →
Whatever a storefront claims, the lot on the vial has to match the lot on the certificate. That check is yours and nobody else can do it for you.
Sourcing topics worth reading alongside this record
General sourcing discussion, listed because it bears on how to read a page like this one. These topics are not about SIG and nothing in them is a claim about this supplier.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Second pass at: Transit times by route, from a logged dataset
On the subject in the title: Second pass at: Transit times by route, from a logged dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on Transit times. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and…
|
2 | 59k | 19mo | |
|
Packaging that arrived damaged: documenting it properly — a second dataset
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Packaging that arrived damaged: documenting it properly — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. A logistics question, since the answers here…
|
+68 | 73 | 20k | 4mo |
|
Reading a regulatory notice rather than an article about it — what changed since
Reading a regulatory notice rather than an article about it — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Asking what a regulator's document actually says, since…
|
+28 | 32 | 640 | 13mo |
|
Research-use-only labelling: what it means and what it does not — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Research-use-only labelling: what it means and what it does not — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. A labelling question, and I would like…
|
+150 | 158 | 55k | 14mo |
|
Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats
On the subject in the title: Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin aggregate verification data down and…
|
+64 | 74 | 4.6k | 14h |
|
[2026 update] What a purity-only report leaves out
The question in the title: What a purity-only report leaves out I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the…
|
+97 | 103 | 5.2k | 3mo |
Maintenance
Maintainers: a.reyes, coldchain_liu. Next review due 14 March 2027.
To add a record, file a structured report in vendor reports with the compound, lot, service, method and result. Reports missing any of those are moved to the discussion rather than the record. Allegations without documentation are hidden under R6 and the hiding is logged.
On what each service's report establishes: Janoshik Analytical · Medutest · PeptideMeter · VendorInvestigate