Confidence: 53%
B0CL9G4644
View on Amazon →Decision summary
Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker formulation coherence.
Best for
Only budget-focused buyers with flexible standards.
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
5.0/10Acceptable 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).
Explore next
Dose 5/10 · Bioavailability 0.4/10 · Coherence 0/10
Ingredient form quality suggests suboptimal ingredient forms.
A proprietary blend limits independent dose verification.
Some ingredient forms are not declared on the label.
This is a multi-ingredient product. The score reflects formulation quality, not efficacy for a specific health goal.
Theanine: dose within clinically studied range (evidence A). 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 formulation coherence.
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
One of the weaker points: Dose is below the ranges usually used for stronger effects. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
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
✔ Clinically effective dose with moderate supporting evidence
A clear strength: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The declared form supports strong absorption.
Scientific evidence
Owen et al. RCT theanine and caffeine on cognitive performance
Nutritional Neuroscience • 2008
PMID: 18681988.0
Lu et al. RCT L-theanine and stress response in healthy adults
Nutritional Neuroscience • 2004
PMID: 16930802.0
✔ Clinically effective dose with moderate supporting evidence
Solid but not a standout: Dose is directionally useful, but not a standout strength. 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
ℹ Evidence is strong, but dose is below the optimal range
A clear drag on the formula: Dose is below the ranges usually used for stronger effects. 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
ℹ Dose is within established clinical ranges, but lacks direct studies
One of the weaker points: Dose is higher than typically recommended ranges.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
ℹ Dose is within established clinical ranges, but lacks direct studies
One of the weaker points: Dose is below the ranges usually used for stronger effects.
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.
Magnesium form is not clearly declared
Exact ingredient form is not disclosed on the label.
Formula design looks less coherent than stronger alternatives
The formulation appears less focused than better-built options.
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.
