Confidence: 80%
B01BGZVXC6
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 care a lot about ingredient quality and effectiveness.
Score breakdown
Tap a module to see what it measures. A 0 can reflect missing disclosure, not just a negative result.
Dosage quality
5.5/10Acceptable 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).
Dose 5.5/10 · Bioavailability 2.8/10 · Coherence 0/10
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.
Vitamin-a: dose within clinically studied range (evidence A). The main limitation is that lutein: below clinically studied range.
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.
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels.
Scientific evidence
Ma et al. meta-analysis lutein/zeaxanthin and age-related macular degeneration
British Journal of Nutrition • 2012
PMID: 26447482.0
Ma et al. RCT lutein supplementation and macular pigment density
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science • 2009
PMID: 16723441.0
✔ 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
✔ Clinically effective dose with moderate supporting evidence
Strong contributor: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
Scientific evidence
Clarke et al. meta-analysis B vitamins and cognitive decline
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition • 2007
PMID: 22243457.0
Shipton & Thachil review of vitamin B12 deficiency and fatigue
Postgraduate Medical Journal • 2015
PMID: 20648714.0
ℹ Dose is within established clinical ranges, but lacks direct studies
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.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
ℹ Dose is within established clinical ranges, but lacks direct studies
Adequate, but not a key strength: Dose is directionally useful, but not a standout strength.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
ℹ Clinically effective dose, but evidence is limited
Dose is well positioned: Dose is strong and within effective ranges.
Scientific evidence
Hodges et al. review on pantothenic acid physiology and human deficiency implications
Advances in Nutrition • 2020
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
Lutein 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.
Vitamin D 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 CoQ10 supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
