Confidence: 80%
B06WP6KQKH
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
6.6/10Acceptable 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 6.6/10 · Bioavailability 2.9/10 · Coherence 0/10
Ingredient form quality suggests suboptimal ingredient forms.
A proprietary blend limits independent dose verification.
This is a multi-ingredient product. The score reflects formulation quality, not efficacy for a specific health goal.
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.
ℹ Dose is within established clinical ranges, but lacks direct studies
A clear strength: Dose is strong and within effective ranges.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
✔ Clinically effective dose with strong supporting evidence
Adequate, but not a key strength: Dose is directionally useful, but not a standout strength. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
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 below the optimal range with moderate supporting evidence
This is a limiting factor: Dose is below the ranges usually used for stronger effects. The declared form supports strong absorption.
Scientific evidence
Balk et al. systematic review chromium picolinate and glycemic control
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics • 2007
PMID: 17519436.0
✔ 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
✔ Clinically effective dose with strong supporting evidence
Dose is well positioned: Dose is strong and within effective ranges.
Scientific evidence
Zimmermann et al. review on iodine deficiency and thyroid function in human populations
Endocrine Reviews • 2009
PMID: 19357404.0
Bath et al. maternal iodine status and offspring cognitive outcomes (ALSPAC cohort)
Lancet • 2013
PMID: 23683674.0
✔ 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.
Proprietary blend limits dose transparency
Exact ingredient amounts cannot be verified clearly.
Formula design looks less coherent than stronger alternatives
The formulation appears less focused than better-built options.
Vitamin A 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 Vitamin D3 supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
