Been working through the research on these two and the gap between evidence and reputation is wider than I expected.
GHK-Cu has a legitimate clinical literature in wound healing with multiple independent research groups, decent journals, and human trial data going back decades. It scores 55 on the evidence framework I've been building. BPC-157 scores 20. Both are in the animal-dominant category for the injury recovery use case people actually care about, but they're not close.
What I find interesting is why the reputation is inverted. GHK-Cu got absorbed into cosmetics (copper peptide serums, hair loss topicals) and that framing seems to have followed it everywhere. Even people who know the wound healing literature don't seem to weight it the same way they weight BPC's anecdotal track record. BPC has the injury recovery stories, the gym community, the tendon and ligament accounts. That signal is loud and specific enough that it dominates even when the formal evidence isn't there to back it.
The evidence framework doesn't resolve this. High anecdotal signal on BPC is real and worth tracking separately from the research score. But it does raise a question I'm genuinely curious about: is the community just unaware that GHK-Cu has a stronger formal foundation in tissue repair? Or is there something about the anecdotal record on BPC that makes the evidence gap feel beside the point?
*This free tool has been approved by r/Peptidesource moderators and follows the free tool rule*