Confidence: 85%
B0G2S6RXD5
View on Amazon →Decision summary
Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker ingredient form quality.
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
2.6/10Dosing 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 proprietary blend prevents independent dose verification.
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.
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.
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose may be too low to be effective
A clear drag on the formula: Dose is below the ranges usually used for stronger effects. 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 may be too low to be effective
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
Cockayne et al. meta-analysis vitamin K2 and bone mineral density
Archives of Internal Medicine • 2006
PMID: 16801507.0
Geleijnse et al. Rotterdam study on vitamin K intake and cardiovascular mortality
Journal of Nutrition • 2004
PMID: 15514282.0
⚠ Moderate evidence exists, but dose may be too low to be effective
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
Eidelman et al. meta-analysis vitamin E and cardiovascular endpoints
Archives of Internal Medicine • 2004
PMID: 12750911.0
Evidence inferred from established knowledge, not directly linked studies
Solid but not a standout: Clinical dosing guidance is limited for this ingredient.
No supporting studies or dosing references are currently available for this ingredient.
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 K2 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 Berberine supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
