🔍 Overview: What each one is

LGD‑4033 (Ligandrol)

• A non‑steroidal SARM with high affinity for the androgen receptor (AR). Wikipedia+2PMC+2
• Has undergone limited human studies. In those trials, LGD‑4033 produced dose‑dependent increases in lean body mass. PMC+2Wikipedia+2
• Arguably the most studied SARM in humans. Wikipedia+2NPC Hello+2

S‑23

• Also a non‑steroidal SARM. Preclinical (animal) data suggest it has very strong AR affinity and potent anabolic effects. PMC+2ScienceDirect+2
• In studies with rodents, S‑23 increased lean muscle mass, bone mineral density, reduced fat mass, and even suppressed spermatogenesis (indicating strong systemic androgenic effect in those models). PMC+2Translational Andrology and Urology+2
• There is no reliable published human clinical trial data for S‑23 — almost all evidence is preclinical. WebMD+2Translational Andrology and Urology+2

⚙️ Relative “Strength” / Effects: Anabolism, Body‑Comp, Hormones

⚠️ Safety, Risks & Unknowns

• Both are part of the class Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs). As a class, SARMs have been associated — even in limited human data or case‑reports — with concerning effects: hormonal disruption, possible lipid changes, liver stress or toxicity, cardiovascular risks, and other unknown long‑term effects. Cleveland Clinic+2MDPI+2
• For LGD‑4033: some trials report reductions in testosterone + SHBG, changes in sex‑hormone balance; long‑term safety remains unknown. PMC+2Wikipedia+2
• For S‑23: because there’s no reliable human data, the risks are much less predictable. Preclinical studies and limited metabolic investigations suggest potent activity — which raises concern that side‑effects (hormonal, liver, metabolic, fertility) might be more severe. ScienceDirect+2ResearchGate+2
• Regulatory and medical authorities warn that SARMs (including LGD‑4033, S‑23) are unapproved, often sold illicitly, and their use carries unknown but potentially serious health risks. Cleveland Clinic+2NPC Hello+2

🎯 What “S‑23 vs LGD‑4033” Seems to Mean — in a Risk/Benefit Frame

• If the goal is adding lean mass / strength, LGD‑4033 has at least some human data supporting muscle gains — though with hormonal suppression.
• If the goal (or desired effect) is more of a “cut, lean, shredded, low-fat, vascular” look (as some bodybuilding‑forum sources claim for S‑23), S‑23’s animal data suggest it might have more fat‑loss + lean‑retention potential — but that’s speculative for humans, and unpredictably risky.
• Because S‑23 appears to be more potent (in animals), the potential for side‑effects or suppression is probably higher — especially in uncontrolled, “real‑world” (non‑clinical) use.
• There is far more uncertainty with S‑23 — less data, no clinical trials, unknown long‑term consequences. LGD‑4033 — while also risky — is somewhat “less unknown” by comparison.

🌐 Scientific & Regulatory Context

• The broader scientific and medical community remains skeptical of SARMs as “safe steroids.” Many reviews emphasize that SARMs (including both LGD‑4033 and S‑23) have not been validated for long‑term safety in humans. PMC+2Wikipedia+2
• A recent review found that SARM use has been associated with liver enzyme elevations and, in some cases, suspected liver injury — especially in non‑medical, high-dose or unregulated use. MDPI+1
• Use of SARMs for performance or physique enhancement remains outside approved medical practice; they are frequently sold illicitly, often mislabeled or with poor quality control. Wikipedia+2NPC Hello+2

🧪 Why It’s Hard to “Declare a Winner”

A “winner” would require: (1) robust human data showing safety + efficacy; (2) predictable, reproducible outcomes. Neither S‑23 nor LGD‑4033 meets those criteria.

• LGD‑4033 has some human data — but limited in duration and scope.
• S‑23 has no credible human data, only animal/preclinical findings — meaning extrapolating to humans is speculative and risky.
• Both carry potentially serious health risks, especially when used outside controlled settings.