Confidence: 64%
B07M7L3J7Y
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 label transparency 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 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
8.4/10Generally solid dosing
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
Magnesium: dose within clinically studied range (evidence A). The main limitation is that formula coherence is weak: diluted, decorative or overly complex.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker label transparency 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 is above the upper dose range
Dose is above the upper dose range. Strong contributor: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. 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 At the minimum effective range, but below the optimal dose with moderate supporting evidence
Dose meets the minimum effective range, but is below the optimal dose used for stronger effects. One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels.
Scientific evidence
Bryan et al. RCT on B vitamins and cognitive function in older adults
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition • 2002
PMID: 16920179.0
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.
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.
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
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.
See the best Magnesium supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
