Confidence: 86%
B0F8H9PWSJ
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 solid product, but not a clean win. The main trade-off is weaker ingredient form quality.
Best for
People prioritizing high absorption and overall formula quality.
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
8.3/10Generally 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 vitamin-d: below clinically studied range.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
A solid product, but not a clean win. The main trade-off is weaker ingredient form quality.
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
✔ Clinically effective dose with strong supporting evidence
Dose is within the optimal/effective 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
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
✔ Clinically effective dose with moderate supporting evidence
Dose is within the optimal/effective range. One of the weaker points: Dose is below the ranges usually used for stronger effects.
Scientific evidence
Bryan et al. RCT on B vitamins and cognitive function in older adults
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition • 2002
PMID: 16920179.0
⚠ 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
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.
Zinc 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 Magnesium supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
