Excuse my long winded reply, but a lot to cover here and I'll go into the specifics for anyone else that later finds this thread with the same questions.
Ipa isn’t a GHRH analog. CJC no DAC and Tesamorelin both hit the GHRH receptor. Ipa hits the ghrelin receptor (GHS-R1a). Same pituitary cell, two different inputs. That’s why GHRH + Ipa is synergistic. I've seen a few blends out there that have Tesa + CJC + IPA and that's just a dumb blend. Two GHRH analogs in one vial would is redundant. This is a vendor honeypot if you ask me.
CJC no DAC is a short GHRH(1-29). Half life is like ~30 min. Solo it’s kind of mid. Pair it with Ipa and you get the pulse people actually want, and the doses line up (both in the low hundreds of mcg), so vendors just standardized a 5/5 or 10/10 blend. In short, you never want CJC alone; always buy it in a blend with Ipa and always no DAC.
Tesa is a stabilized GHRH(1-44). It was developed and approved as monotherapy (Egrifta, 2mg daily). The Phase 3 VAT data is Tesa alone — and if memory serves ~15% visceral drop, IGF-1 up, not much happening to subcutaneous fat or scale weight. Research shops just sell Tesa the way the drug exists, solo. Also the doses don’t mix cleanly. Tesa is in mg, Ipa is in mcg. Premixing that is a dumb fixed ratio, and Tesa is already the expensive vial so they’re not dying to throw Ipa in for free.
You can run Tesa + Ipa as two separate pins if you want the dual-receptor bump. People do it. It’s just not a common factory blend and you're getting expensive at that point. Most people honestly go with the CJC/ IPA route because of cost.
Better depends on what you mean. Tesa has actual human outcome data for visceral/liver fat. CJC/IPA is cheaper and probably a bigger raw GH pulse because two receptors. Bigger pulse ≠ automatically better VAT loss. If I was chasing the thing tesa actually has trials for I’d run Tesa solo. If I just wanted a cheap nightly pulse stack I’d do CJC no DAC + Ipa. That's my 2¢.