NAD+ × Felix Chemical Supply — Lab Test, November 2025
freedomdiagnosticstesting.com publishes a public verification portal. Any test attributed to this lab can be looked up and confirmed directly with the lab — so this result doesn't rest on our review alone.
This certificate carries no lookup code.
Test results
This is a purity and identity analysis. Sterility, endotoxins, and heavy metals were not screened — a high purity figure says nothing about those.
About this test
Label 500 mg · Lab measured 534.26 mg
107% of label, basis not stated — shown as printed. Reconstituted with 2 mL, a 50-unit draw holds 133.6 mg using the measured mass, against 125 mg on the label — 7% more.
One vial from this lot was weighed by the laboratory, not yours. This page reports what the certificate says; it does not recommend a dose.
Independent HPLC purity analysis of NAD+ from felixchem.is, performed by freedomdiagnosticstesting.com on November 20, 2025. Reported purity: 99.77%. Net content: 534.26 mg against 500 mg labeled (107% of label). Batch 111725-NAD-1. Sample source: shop-provided. Certificate of analysis attached.
Certificate of analysis
Other lots of NAD+ from felixchem.is
| Lot | Tested | Lab | Purity | vs label | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 042326-NAD-6 | 26 Apr 2026 | freedomdiagnosticstesting.com | 99.8% | 109% | Unverified |
| 031126-NAD-A | 15 Mar 2026 | freedomdiagnosticstesting.com | 99.832% | 92% | Unverified |
| 121525-NAD-4 | 23 Dec 2025 | freedomdiagnosticstesting.com | 99.959% | 98% | Unverified |
| 100425-NAD-6 | 8 Oct 2025 | freedomdiagnosticstesting.com | 99.991% | 119% | Unverified |
| 092525-NAD-A | 1 Oct 2025 | freedomdiagnosticstesting.com | 99.947% | 101% | Unverified |
| 081825-NAD-B | 20 Aug 2025 | Chromate | 97.749% | 132% | Unverified |
Batches this shop has published a certificate for, newest first. A lot whose printed value cannot identify a batch is not listed.
Have you tested this peptide?
Submit your third-party lab test to help the community verify purity claims. Every report is reviewed before publication.
Community discussion