Confidence: 76%
B0BXGS2BZY
View on Amazon →Decision summary
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker formulation coherence makes better alternatives worth comparing.
Best for
Buyers comparing price and availability and okay with a middle-of-the-pack option.
Consider another option if
You prefer fully transparent formulas over blends and ambiguous labeling.
Score breakdown
Tap a module to see what it measures. A 0 can reflect missing disclosure, not just a negative result.
Dosage quality
8.1/10Generally solid dosing
Checks whether labeled ingredient amounts fall within clinically studied ranges (not just regulatory minimums). Low/0 can reflect under-dosing or missing amounts (e.g., proprietary blends).
Explore next
Theanine: dose within clinically studied range (evidence A). The main limitation is that proprietary blend prevents independent dose verification.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker formulation coherence makes better alternatives worth comparing.
A closer look at the main ingredients, how they influence the score, and the supporting evidence when available. Tap any ingredient to expand.
✔ Clinically effective dose with moderate supporting evidence
A clear strength: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The declared form supports strong absorption.
Scientific evidence
Owen et al. RCT theanine and caffeine on cognitive performance
Nutritional Neuroscience • 2008
PMID: 18681988.0
Lu et al. RCT L-theanine and stress response in healthy adults
Nutritional Neuroscience • 2004
PMID: 16930802.0
ℹ Dose is below the optimal range and supported by limited evidence
Supports the formula, but not a major driver: Dose is directionally useful, but not a standout strength. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
Scientific evidence
Byun et al. RCT GABA and sleep efficacy
Journal of Psychiatric Research • 2018
PMID: 25540654.0
⚠ Dose is below commonly used clinical ranges
One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form supports strong absorption.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
Scientific evidence
Boyle et al. systematic review magnesium and subjective anxiety
Nutrients • 2017
PMID: 28145455.0
Dong et al. meta-analysis magnesium intake and type 2 diabetes risk
Diabetes Care • 2011
PMID: 21868780.0
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
Proprietary blend limits dose transparency
Exact ingredient amounts cannot be verified clearly.
Formula design looks less coherent than stronger alternatives
The formulation appears less focused than better-built options.
Tryptophan dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Read our methodology overview to understand how SuppScoreLab combines multiple scientific dimensions into one practical score.
View methodology →This evaluation is based on the product label and declared Supplement Facts available at review time. It does not verify laboratory-tested composition, purity, or batch-level quality. This content is educational and not medical advice. Consult a qualified healthcare professional for personal health decisions. Affiliate disclosure: SuppScoreLab may earn a commission from qualifying Amazon links.
See the best Magnesium supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
