Confidence: 95%
B0D16FNPY5
View on Amazon →Decision summary
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker formulation coherence 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 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
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).
Explore next
Biotin: dose within clinically studied range (evidence B). The main limitation is that proprietary blend prevents independent dose verification.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker formulation coherence 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 moderate supporting evidence
Strong contributor: Dose is strong and within effective ranges.
Scientific evidence
Patel et al. systematic review biotin and hair/nail health
Skin Appendage Disorders • 2017
PMID: 28786550.0
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
This is a limiting factor: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
Scientific evidence
Hemila & Chalker Cochrane review vitamin C and common cold duration
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews • 2013
PMID: 23440782.0
Padayatty et al. RCT on vitamin C antioxidant capacity in healthy adults
Journal of the American College of Nutrition • 2001
PMID: 11684527.0
⚠ Moderate evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
A clear drag on the formula: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
Scientific evidence
Zou et al. meta-analysis hyaluronic acid and knee osteoarthritis
PLOS ONE • 2014
PMID: 22424500.0
Oe et al. RCT oral hyaluronic acid and skin dryness and wrinkles
Nutrition Journal • 2017
PMID: 27224842.0
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
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
de Miranda et al. systematic review collagen peptides and skin
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology • 2021
PMID: 31627309.0
Clark et al. RCT collagen hydrolysate and joint pain in athletes
Current Medical Research and Opinion • 2008
PMID: 19212965.0
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.
Vitamin C 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.
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 Collagen supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
