Confidence: 79%
B07NC8BPV9
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
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
4.4/10Dosing 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).
Dose 4.4/10 · Bioavailability 6.7/10 · Coherence 0/10
Dose quality suggests a diluted formulation.
A proprietary blend limits independent dose verification.
This is a multi-ingredient product. The score reflects formulation quality, not efficacy for a specific health goal.
Caffeine: high-bioavailability form declared (Caffeine Anhydrous). 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.
ℹ Evidence is strong, but dose is below the optimal range
This is a limiting factor: Dose is below the ranges usually used for stronger effects. The declared form supports strong absorption.
Scientific evidence
McLellan et al. systematic review caffeine and alertness
Nutritional Neuroscience • 2016
PMID: 26677204.0
Warren et al. meta-analysis caffeine and strength performance
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research • 2010
PMID: 22840561.0
ℹ Dose is below the optimal range with moderate supporting evidence
One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
Scientific evidence
Clarke et al. meta-analysis B vitamins and cognitive decline
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition • 2007
PMID: 22243457.0
Shipton & Thachil review of vitamin B12 deficiency and fatigue
Postgraduate Medical Journal • 2015
PMID: 20648714.0
ℹ Dose is below the optimal range with moderate supporting evidence
One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
Scientific evidence
Bryan et al. RCT on B vitamins and cognitive function in older adults
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition • 2002
PMID: 16920179.0
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
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
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
A clear drag on the formula: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
Scientific evidence
Tang et al. meta-analysis calcium supplementation and fracture risk
BMJ • 2007
PMID: 17720017.0
⚠ Dose is below commonly used clinical ranges
This is a limiting factor: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
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.
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.
Vitamin B6 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.
Keep exploring the database to compare better-ranked supplements and ingredient guides.
