← Back to Comparisons
RQS Comparison

Nootropic Peptides Compared

These five come up together in nootropic-peptide discussion, but they are not rivals. They target different things, and the community talks about them additively - more "you might also try" than "either-or." Adamax joins the group as the newest entry in this lineage: a structural descendant of Semax with more ambitious pharmacokinetic design and zero published research of its own. That gap is the most useful thing this comparison can show.

#1
Cerebrolysin
Nootropics & Neuroprotection
62
/100
Moderate
#2
Semax
Nootropics & Neuroprotection
42
/100
Limited
#3
DSIP
Nootropics & Neuroprotection
37
/100
Weak
#4
Selank
Nootropics & Neuroprotection
36
/100
Weak
#5
Adamax
Nootropics & Neuroprotection
11
/100
Insufficient

How they compare across dimensions

Each dimension on its own scale, all five side by side. Cerebrolysin leads on volume and quality. Adamax's bars are a visual illustration of what "no published research" looks like next to compounds that at least have some.
Semax Selank DSIP Cerebrolysin Adamax
Study Design/ 25
CBL highest
SMX
15
SLK
15
DSP
11
CBL
20
ADX
2
Sample Size/ 20
CBL highest
SMX
8
SLK
4
DSP
4
CBL
12
ADX
0
Replication/ 20
CBL highest
SMX
5
SLK
5
DSP
4
CBL
10
ADX
0
Journal Impact Factor/ 15
CBL highest
SMX
4
SLK
4
DSP
4
CBL
8
ADX
2
Funding Independence/ 10
DSP highest
SMX
7
SLK
4
DSP
10
CBL
4
ADX
4
Population Diversity/ 5
DSP/CBL tied highest
SMX
1
SLK
1
DSP
3
CBL
3
ADX
0
Researcher h-Index/ 5
CBL highest
SMX
2
SLK
3
DSP
1
CBL
5
ADX
3

How they complement each other

The original four address different targets, which is why framing them as a contest misses the point. Semax is used for cognition and neuroprotection, Selank for anxiety and calm, DSIP for sleep, and Cerebrolysin as a neurotrophic agent with the deepest clinical history of the group, particularly in stroke and dementia research. Someone exploring this space is usually assembling a toolkit, not picking a single winner.

Adamax is the sharpest illustration of what this comparison can show. Its structural rationale is sound - N-terminal acetylation to slow enzymatic breakdown, a C-terminal adamantane group to improve blood-brain barrier penetration, both borrowed from established medicinal chemistry principles. The pharmacokinetic logic extends Semax's mechanism plausibly. But no published study of Adamax exists in any species. The bars are essentially empty because the evidence base is empty, not because the compound is dismissed. The score of 11 reflects that gap accurately.

On research quality, Cerebrolysin is clearly the best-studied, reaching Moderate, and it leads most of the volume-and-quality dimensions. But even it is capped below Strong by a limitation shared across this group: the literature is geographically concentrated. Cerebrolysin's strongest evidence clusters in Eastern European and Asian research, and Semax and Selank are Russian-developed with much of their published work in Russian-language journals, which limits the independent international replication the RQS rewards. Adamax inherits this same regional origin - but without even that literature base to point to.

One number stands out against the grain: DSIP scores highest on funding independence (10 out of 10), because its small and somewhat dated sleep literature is almost entirely academic. That is a genuine strength on one dimension sitting inside an otherwise thin evidence base, a reminder that a single dimension rarely tells the whole story.

So the orientation here is not a ranking to act on. It is a map: Cerebrolysin is the most-researched if evidence quality is your priority; Semax, Selank, and DSIP are earlier-stage with region-concentrated literature; and Adamax sits at the research frontier in the least productive sense - a compound with interesting engineering and no data yet. Because they target different things, the realistic question is which target you care about, not which peptide wins.

What this comparison does and does not tell you
The Research Quality Score grades the quality of the published clinical research behind each compound. It does not measure safety, efficacy, or whether any compound works. Several of these compounds have research bases concentrated in specific regions or languages, which lowers the replication score without necessarily meaning the findings are wrong. Adamax has no published research in any language or database. Nothing here is medical advice.