Confidence: 81%
B0DZQG5YF6
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 want one of the best-absorbed options in this category.
Score breakdown
Tap a module to see what it measures. A 0 can reflect missing disclosure, not just a negative result.
Dosage quality
2.6/10Dosing 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).
Dose 2.6/10 · Bioavailability 5.8/10 · Coherence 2/10
Dose quality suggests a diluted formulation.
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 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 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
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. 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
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 strong supporting evidence
A clear drag on the formula: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
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 Dose is below the optimal range with moderate supporting evidence
One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form is not one of the better-absorbed options.
Scientific evidence
Bryan et al. RCT on B vitamins and cognitive function in older adults
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition • 2002
PMID: 16920179.0
Evidence inferred from established knowledge, not directly linked studies
Solid but not a standout: 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.
Vitamin D dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Magnesium 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.
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.
