Confidence: 41%
B0DKNJBC9C
View on Amazon →SuppScoreLab compares supplement products for informational purposes. We do not sell products directly, and some links may take you to third-party retailers.
Decision summary
Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker ingredient form quality.
Best for
Very few buyers — better options are usually available.
Consider another option if
You care a lot about label clarity and want fewer unknowns.
Score breakdown
Tap a module to see what it measures. A 0 can reflect missing disclosure, not just a negative result.
Dosage quality
3.8/10Dosing looks weaker than ideal
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).
Dose 3.8/10 · Bioavailability 0/10 · Coherence 0/10
Dose quality suggests a diluted formulation.
Ingredient form quality suggests suboptimal ingredient forms.
Some ingredient forms are not declared on the label.
This is a multi-ingredient product. The score reflects formulation quality, not efficacy for a specific health goal.
Zinc: dose within clinically studied range (evidence A). The main limitation is that ashwagandha: below clinically studied range.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker ingredient form quality.
A closer look at the main ingredients, how they influence the score, and the supporting evidence when available. Tap any ingredient to expand.
⚠ 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
Wankhede et al. RCT ashwagandha and testosterone levels
American Journal of Men's Health • 2015
PMID: 31991540.0
Chandrasekhar et al. RCT ashwagandha and cortisol in stressed adults
Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine • 2012
PMID: 23439798.0
Evidence inferred from established knowledge, not directly linked studies
Supports the formula, but not a major driver: Clinical dosing guidance is limited for this ingredient.
No supporting studies or dosing references are currently available for this ingredient.
✔ Clinically effective dose with strong supporting evidence
Dose is well positioned: Dose is strong and within effective ranges.
Scientific evidence
Wald et al. meta-analysis of folic acid and cardiovascular risk
BMJ • 2002
PMID: 15364185.0
Daly et al. RCT on folate supplementation and homocysteine reduction
New England Journal of Medicine • 1996
PMID: 9521168.0
ℹ Dose is within established clinical ranges, but lacks direct studies
Adequate, but not a key strength: Dose is directionally useful, but not a standout strength.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
✔ Clinically effective dose with strong supporting evidence
This is a limiting factor: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
Scientific evidence
Singh & Das Cochrane review zinc for common cold
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews • 2011
PMID: 22553186.0
Prasad et al. RCT zinc supplementation and testosterone in elderly men
Nutrition • 1996
PMID: 8875519.0
ℹ Dose is within established clinical ranges, but lacks direct studies
One of the weaker points: Dose is below the ranges usually used for stronger effects. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
Ashwagandha dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Ashwagandha form is not clearly declared
Exact ingredient form is not disclosed on the label.
Formula design looks less coherent than stronger alternatives
The formulation appears less focused than better-built options.
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.
Keep exploring the database to compare better-ranked supplements and ingredient guides.
