With the large variety of different SARMs available for sale, it can be hard to know which one to use in your next cycle. Two of the most popular SARMs for gaining muscle mass are RAD 140 (Testolone) and LGD 4033 (Ligandrol).
RAD 140 and LGD 4033 have a lot of similarities, but also some striking differences. In this article, we will compare the two and show you which one is the better option for your goals.
If you’d like to skip the reading and instead know my recommendation, you can skip to the final review by clicking here.
What are the main differences between RAD 140 and LGD 4033?
The main differences between RAD 140 vs LGD 4033 are:
- RAD 140 is better at building mass in a short time, whereas LGD 4033 produces more consistent gains over long cycles
- RAD 140 has significant androgenic activity, whereas LGD 4033 has mostly anabolic properties
- RAD 140 has an average cost of $60, whereas LGD 4033 costs $40 on average
Comparing the science behind RAD 140 and LGD 4033
LGD 4033 was created by Ligand Pharmaceuticals. Originally, they studied it’s ability to treat muscle wasting conditions. In 2018, Ligand sold the rights to the drug to Viking.
Initial studies done on Ligandrol show that it is highly anabolic. A 2010 study demonstrated that LGD 4033 promotes dose dependent gains in lean body mass. A 10.2% increase of body mass occurred in participants taking only 1mg a day.
Likewise, RAD 140 has similar origins. Radius Health created RAD140 to investigate it’s potential to treat muscle wasting disorders. Studies were also done to see if it could offer an alternative to men using TRT.
This study shows that even small doses (0.1mg/kg) of Testolone increase total body weight.
Comparing RAD 140 vs LGD 4033
RAD 140 vs LGD 4033
These SARMs share a lot of characteristics which can make it difficult to decide which one is best. We’ve put together a table below that will help you compare the two side by side.
|Dry, consistent mass gains.
|Rapid muscle and weight gains.
|PG, DMSO, Ethanol
|DMSO, Ethanol, PEG-400
|$55 to $70
RAD 140 Pros and Cons
There are pros and cons of using any SARM. Whether or not RAD 140 is the best choice for you will depend on your goals and risk tolerance. Here are some of the pros and cons of using RAD 140:
- Rapid muscle growth and strength gains
- Improved endurance and stamina
- Faster recovery and reduced injury risk
- Possible suppression of natural testosterone
- Limited long-term safety data available
LGD 4033 Pros and Cons
- Substantial lean muscle mass increase
- Enhanced strength and performance
- More commonly researched
- Potential for testosterone suppression
- Mild side effects like nausea and headaches
Which SARM is better for lean body mass?
Lean Body Mass
Both of these SARMs are good options when it comes to packing on size. They are highly anabolic drugs that allow users to experience rapid gains in lean body mass.
With that being said, Ligandrol is the better choice for those who want to experience lean, dry gains. You can cycle it for up to 12 weeks at a time. Users report steady, consistent gains that are easy to keep after your cycle ends.
RAD140 is a better choice if your only concern is to add maximum size in the shortest amount of time. You should keep these cycles short, since Testolone causes more suppression than LGD.
Bottom line: Both are great for gaining mass, but LGD 4033 remains king for pure, lean body mass gains.
Side Effect Comparison
Next up, let’s talk about side effects. Nobody likes having their cycle ruined by unforeseen issues.
RAD140 and LGD4033 are both SARMs. Thus, they have much less side effects than traditional old school steroids.
With that said, RAD 140 has much more androgenic activity than LGD 4033 does.
Androgenic activity means hair loss, deepened voice, prostate growth, etc… You know, the stuff you want to avoid when on cycle.
Ligandrol does not have nearly as much androgenic activity. Side effects such as hair loss are very rare and occur in a small amount of users.
Bottom line: LGD 4033 has less potential side effects than RAD 140 does.
Which Causes More Suppression
All SARMs cause some level of testosterone suppression, and these two are no different. When comparing the two, it’s clear that RAD 140 causes much more suppression than LGD does.
For some people, that doesn’t matter. If you’re on some form of TRT (testosterone replacement therapy), you don’t need to worry about suppression.
Most people, though, don’t want to deal with have low T levels (even if it is temporary). Some of the side effects of low T are:
- Fatigue and low energy levels
- Hard time “getting it up”
- Lower libido and sexual desire
- Loss of motivation.
Not something I want to deal with if I can control it.
Bottom line: LGD 4033 causes less testosterone suppression than RAD 140 does.
Next up let’s look at common prices of both compounds. For this comparison, we averaged the prices from our list of stores with sarms for sale.
The average cost of ligandrol came in at $45. The average RAD/Testolone price varies between $55 and $70.
Overall Winner: LGD 4033
I’ll be completely honest, I love ligandrol. It’s an absolute gem of the SARMs world and is one of the most powerful mass gainers out right now.
When you compare it with RAD-140, it reigns superior in almost all aspects.
It is true that testolone is a stronger SARM on a milligram to milligram basis. But stronger doesn’t always mean better.
What good does a stronger SARM do you if you lack the energy to go to the gym? News flash, it doesn’t.
Now, of course there are some people that respond differently. I’ve reviewed bloodwork from people using both drugs and have seen it go both ways. I know of many people who swear by Testolone.
Ultimately, you should try both (separately) and find out which one you like more. They are both fantastic options for gaining mass, size, and strength.
How to Pick What SARM to Use
The most common question we receive is “which sarm should I use?”. It’s a hard question to answer because it all depends on your goals.
You can see our list of the best sarms for bulking. Of course, both LGD and RAD made the list.
On our homepage, you can use our free SARM matching tool to find out which SARM best suits your goals and body type. It is free to use and we are constantly tweaking the algorithm to make sure the results it gives are accurate.
Other Bulking SARMs
Since writing this article originally, a successor to RAD140 has emerged. It’s known as RAD 150, or TLB 150, depending on where you shop.
As an esterified version of RAD 140, RAD-150 shows promising potential for being even more powerful than its predecessor. The esterification process enhances the compound’s bioavailability and half-life, potentially amplifying its anabolic effects on muscle growth and strength.
While research on RAD-150 is still in its early stages, initial findings indicate that it could be a game-changing addition to the arsenal of bulking SARMs. Check out my beginners guide on RAD 150
Where can I buy LGD 4033 and RAD 140?
You can find both online, but be careful where you shop. These two SARMs are faked quite often. We keep an updated list of trusted sarm sources that can help you find a legit source.
Is RAD 140 better than LGD?
There’s no question that RAD140 is a stronger SARM. Stronger doesn’t always mean better though, since there are many things that factor in. You can read our full comparison to see which one we recommend.
What has more side effects?
RAD 140 has a lot more side effects than LGD does. Studies show that this is because RAD has more affinity for the androgen receptor.
Can I stack LGD 4033 and RAD 140?
Yes you can, provided you are using appropriate doses. Our recommended SARMs bulking stack shows you how to do it safely.
Basaria, Shehzad, et al. “The safety, pharmacokinetics, and effects of LGD-4033, a novel nonsteroidal oral, selective androgen receptor modulator, in healthy young men.” Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences 68.1 (2010): 87-95.
Miller, Chris P., et al. “Design, synthesis, and preclinical characterization of the selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) RAD140.” ACS medicinal chemistry letters 2.2 (2010): 124-129.