Confidence: 100%
B0DL6JVD1Z
View on Amazon →Decision summary
A solid product, but not a clean win. The main trade-off is weaker dosing.
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
5.2/10Acceptable 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).
Zinc: dose within clinically studied range (evidence A). The main limitation is that magnesium: below clinically studied range.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
A solid product, but not a clean win. The main trade-off is weaker dosing.
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
A clear strength: Dose is strong and within effective 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
⚠ 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
⚠ 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
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 not one of the better-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
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
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.
Vitamin D 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.
