Confidence: 85%
B0FDB3H3S3
View on Amazon →Decision summary
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker dosing 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
4.6/10Dosing looks weaker than ideal
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 4.6/10 · Bioavailability 4.6/10 · Coherence 6/10
Dose quality suggests a diluted formulation.
Ingredient form quality suggests suboptimal ingredient forms.
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.
Vitamin-d: high-bioavailability form declared (Cholecalciferol (D3)). The main limitation is that vitamin-d: below clinically studied range.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker dosing 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 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
✔ Clinically effective dose with strong supporting evidence
A clear drag on the formula: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The declared form is not one of the better-absorbed options.
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 Evidence is strong, but dose is below the optimal range
This is a limiting factor: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
Scientific evidence
Yurko-Mauro et al. RCT DHA and memory in age-related decline
Alzheimer's & Dementia • 2010
PMID: 20439549.0
ℹ Dose is below the optimal range with moderate supporting evidence
Supports the formula, but not a major driver: Dose is directionally useful, but not a standout strength.
Scientific evidence
Fakhri et al. meta-analysis astaxanthin and oxidative stress
Antioxidants • 2021
PMID: 33924894.0
Tominaga et al. RCT astaxanthin and skin wrinkles
Acta Biochimica Polonica • 2012
PMID: 22428137.0
✔ Clinically effective dose with strong supporting evidence
This is a limiting factor: 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
Fortin et al. meta-analysis omega-3 and rheumatoid arthritis
Journal of Rheumatology • 2000
PMID: 12480795.0
Bhatt et al. REDUCE-IT trial EPA and cardiovascular events
New England Journal of Medicine • 2019
PMID: 31141425.0
ℹ Evidence is strong, but dose is below the optimal range
This is a limiting factor: Dose is below the ranges usually used for stronger effects. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
Scientific evidence
Mortensen et al. Q-SYMBIO trial CoQ10 and heart failure outcomes
JACC: Heart Failure • 2014
PMID: 23221577.0
Mizuno et al. RCT CoQ10 and fatigue
Nutrition • 2008
PMID: 18272900.0
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
Vitamin D 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.
Epa form is not clearly declared
Exact ingredient form is not disclosed on the label.
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 Omega-3 supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
