Confidence: 85%
B0DG3YCDDL
View on Amazon →Decision summary
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker formulation coherence makes better alternatives worth comparing.
Best for
People prioritizing high absorption and overall formula quality.
Consider another option if
You want fewer compromises on formulation quality.
Score breakdown
Tap a module to see what it measures. A 0 can reflect missing disclosure, not just a negative result.
Dosage quality
6.7/10Acceptable 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 6.7/10 · Bioavailability 6.3/10 · Coherence 0/10
This is a multi-ingredient product. The score reflects formulation quality, not efficacy for a specific health goal.
Quercetin: dose within clinically studied range (evidence B). The main limitation is that formula coherence is weak: diluted, decorative or overly complex.
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.
✔ Clinically effective dose with moderate supporting evidence
A clear strength: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The declared form supports strong absorption.
Scientific evidence
Guo et al. meta-analysis quercetin and antioxidant markers
Phytotherapy Research • 2017
PMID: 27995808.0
Nieman et al. RCT quercetin and upper respiratory tract infections
Nutrients • 2007
PMID: 19965765.0
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
Hemila & Chalker Cochrane review vitamin C and common cold duration
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews • 2013
PMID: 23440782.0
Padayatty et al. RCT on vitamin C antioxidant capacity in healthy adults
Journal of the American College of Nutrition • 2001
PMID: 11684527.0
ℹ Dose is below the optimal range with moderate supporting evidence
One of the weaker points: Dose is below the ranges usually used for stronger effects. The declared form is not one of the better-absorbed options.
Scientific evidence
Liu et al. meta-analysis resveratrol and cardiovascular risk factors
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition • 2014
PMID: 26947365.0
⚠ Moderate evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
A clear drag on the formula: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
Scientific evidence
Akbari et al. meta-analysis ALA and oxidative stress markers
Clinical Nutrition • 2018
PMID: 26544715.0
Solmonides et al. meta-analysis ALA and glycemic control
Obesity Reviews • 2011
PMID: 22830575.0
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose is below 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
Evidence inferred from established knowledge, not directly linked studies
Supports the formula, but not a major driver: Clinical dosing guidance is limited for this ingredient.
No supporting studies or dosing references are currently available for this ingredient.
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.
Alpha Lipoic Acid dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Green Tea 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 Zinc supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
