Confidence: 100%
B0FC11Q7N9
View on Amazon →Decision summary
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker dosing makes better alternatives worth comparing.
Best for
People prioritizing high absorption and overall formula quality.
Consider another option if
You want fewer compromises on formulation quality.
Score breakdown
Tap a module to see what it measures. A 0 can reflect missing disclosure, not just a negative result.
Dosage quality
2.4/10Dosing 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).
Explore next
Vitamin-d: high-bioavailability form declared (Cholecalciferol (D3)). The main limitation is that vitamin-d: below clinically studied range.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker dosing 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.
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose may be too low to be effective
A clear drag on the formula: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form supports strong absorption.
Scientific evidence
Martineau et al. meta-analysis vitamin D supplementation and respiratory infections
BMJ • 2017
PMID: 26864360.0
Bischoff-Ferrari et al. meta-analysis vitamin D fracture prevention
BMJ • 2009
PMID: 20198382.0
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form supports strong absorption.
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
ℹ Evidence is strong, but dose is below the optimal range
Strong contributor: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The declared form supports strong absorption.
Scientific evidence
Avgerinos et al. meta-analysis creatine and cognitive function
Experimental Gerontology • 2018
PMID: 33578433.0
Brose et al. systematic review creatine and muscle strength
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise • 2003
PMID: 12945830.0
ℹ Dose is below the optimal range with moderate supporting evidence
Adequate, but not a key strength: Dose is directionally useful, but not a standout strength. The declared form supports strong absorption.
Scientific evidence
Bhatt et al. meta-analysis taurine and blood pressure
Hypertension Research • 2016
PMID: 26676042.0
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
Vitamin D dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Magnesium dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
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.
See the best Creatine supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
