Vendor Intelligence Report: Shanghai OuDaXin New Material Technology Center

Executive summary

Across 45 Finnrick lab tests, Shanghai OuDaXin passed 33 and failed 12, for a 73% overall pass rate. The tested catalog is small and uneven rather than uniformly unusable: tirzepatide is the least weak signal, retatrutide trails it, and tesamorelin is the product to avoid unless a current, batch-specific independent COA can be tied to the actual lot. The full report also shows how ratings move under stricter grading, where a simple pass/fail read becomes less reassuring.

The identity layer is the bigger reason this vendor needs buyer due diligence. A ChemicalBook profile, a recently registered oudaxin.com domain, a Henan copyright footer, and COA imagery under a different label create a four-name map: OuDaXin, Affida, THT, and THIT. The captured marketplace records point to a young Shanghai sole proprietorship, not the large GMP manufacturing platform implied by the public marketing.

OuDaXin’s claims of GMP production bases, millions of users, overseas warehouses, pharmaceutical partnerships, and broad pre-shipment testing were checked against available records and independent test history. The dossier also weighs a GLP-1 Forum record containing both ordinary buyer anecdotes and a materially more serious alleged hand-labeled raw-steroid-powder mis-shipment. No public affiliate-promotion network was found in the searched surfaces, which is a clean point, but it does not resolve the identity, COA, fulfillment, or quality-control risks.

Inside the full report:

• Per-product pass/fail interpretation and methodology-divergence charts for all 3 Finnrick-tested products
• Name-map of OuDaXin, Affida, THT, THIT, and the Henan footer signal across captured exhibits
• Corporate timeline tying the ChemicalBook formation record to the oudaxin.com registration
• COA analysis of the Janoshik/THIT sample and batch-verification caveats
• Marketing-claim check covering GMP bases, 5M users, overseas warehouses, QC points, and claimed partners
• Community-record review of the GLP-1 Forum thread, including the raw-powder mis-shipment and customs/refund anecdotes

Risk assessment

• Tesamorelin quality risk — high: Weakest Finnrick-tested product: 8 tests (5 pass / 3 fail) and 50.02% rating; avoid unless a current, batch-specific independent COA verifies identity, purity, and fill.
• Tirzepatide and retatrutide quality risk — medium: Tirzepatide is stronger at 78.27% (24 tests; 19 pass / 5 fail) and retatrutide at 74.32% (13 tests; 9 pass / 4 fail), but both still carry material failures.
• Corporate transparency and brand-confusion risk — high: ChemicalBook Affida slug/OuDaXin name, THT website, THIT COAs, Henan copyright, and no authorized-channel list make identity verification difficult.
• Claims-veracity risk — high: GMP bases, 5M users, 120+ QC points, and overseas warehouse claims were not substantiated and are inconsistent with the young sole-proprietorship profile and testing record.
• Regulated-substance and catalog-compliance risk — high: Public catalog includes prescription/controlled items and forum posts report private Anavar/testosterone/Clomid sales.
• Fulfillment and mislabeling risk — high: Forum user reported receiving a box of hand-labeled raw steroid powders instead of ordered finished items; incident signals weak pick/pack controls if accurate.
• COA and batch-verification risk — medium: Janoshik sample reviewed lists THIT as both client and manufacturer for GHK-Cu, not the Finnrick-tested GLP-1 peptides; public Janoshik database was not verified in this run.