Confidence: 90%
B08FXYT1RT
View on Amazon →Decision summary
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker ingredient form quality makes better alternatives worth comparing.
Best for
People prioritizing high absorption and overall formula quality.
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
6.8/10Acceptable dosing, but not standout
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).
Copper: dose within clinically studied range (evidence B). The main limitation is that copper: chemical form not specified on label.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker ingredient form quality 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 strong supporting evidence
This is a limiting factor: Dose is higher than typically recommended ranges. The declared form supports strong absorption.
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
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.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
✔ Clinically effective dose with moderate supporting evidence
A clear drag on the formula: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
Scientific evidence
Broome et al. RCT selenium and immune function
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition • 2004
PMID: 14657398.0
Clark et al. RCT selenium supplementation and cancer prevention
JAMA • 1996
PMID: 8629283.0
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
Copper form is not clearly declared
Exact ingredient form is not disclosed on the label.
Selenium form is not clearly declared
Exact ingredient form is not disclosed on the label.
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 Zinc supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
