Confidence: 70%
B0BPMHZV9J
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
Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker dosing.
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
0.0/10Dosing 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 0/10 · Bioavailability 0.9/10 · Coherence 0/10
Dose quality suggests a diluted formulation.
Ingredient form quality suggests suboptimal ingredient forms.
This is a multi-ingredient product. The score reflects formulation quality, not efficacy for a specific health goal.
The formula stays relatively clean on excipients. The main limitation is that formula coherence is weak: diluted, decorative or overly complex.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker dosing.
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 strong supporting evidence
Solid but not a standout: Clinical dosing guidance is limited for this ingredient.
Scientific evidence
King et al. meta-analysis probiotics and respiratory tract infections
British Journal of Nutrition • 2014
PMID: 25047331.0
Ritchie & Romanuk meta-analysis probiotic supplementation and GI health
PLOS ONE • 2012
PMID: 23961244.0
✔ Dose aligned with moderate supporting evidence
Solid but not a standout: Clinical dosing guidance is limited for this ingredient. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
Scientific evidence
Rambaldi et al. Cochrane review silymarin for alcoholic or hepatitis liver disease
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews • 2007
PMID: 22517298.0
⚠ Moderate evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
Dose is below the minimum effective threshold. A clear drag on the formula: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels.
Scientific evidence
Tan et al. meta-analysis ginkgo biloba and cognitive function
Current Medical Research and Opinion • 2015
PMID: 22782022.0
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
Dose is below the minimum effective threshold. One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels.
Scientific evidence
Bartels et al. meta-analysis ginger and joint pain
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage • 2015
PMID: 25609540.0
Thomson et al. meta-analysis ginger and nausea
Obstetrics & Gynecology • 2014
PMID: 24788711.0
⚠ Limited evidence exists, and dose is below effective threshold
Dose is below the minimum effective threshold. A clear drag on the formula: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels.
Scientific evidence
Matkovic et al. RCT astragalus and allergic rhinitis
Phytotherapy Research • 2010
PMID: 23386028.0
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
Dose is below the minimum 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
Zheng et al. meta-analysis green tea and oxidative stress
PLoS ONE • 2016
PMID: 24675074.0
Hursel et al. meta-analysis green tea and body composition
International Journal of Obesity • 2009
PMID: 21969342.0
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
Formula design looks less coherent than stronger alternatives
The formulation appears less focused than better-built options.
Bifidobacterium Longum dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Bifidobacterium Lactis 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 Probiotics supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
