Confidence: 63%
B0CH1S3G1P
View on Amazon →Decision summary
Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker formulation coherence.
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 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
6.9/10Acceptable 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).
Explore next
Dose 6.9/10 · Bioavailability 0.1/10 · Coherence 0/10
Ingredient form quality suggests suboptimal ingredient forms.
Some ingredient forms are not declared on the label.
This is a multi-ingredient product. The score reflects formulation quality, not efficacy for a specific health goal.
Zinc: dose within clinically studied range (evidence A). The main limitation is that zinc: chemical form not specified on label.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker formulation coherence.
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
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
⚠ 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
This is a limiting factor: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. 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
⚠ Strong 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
Tang et al. meta-analysis calcium supplementation and fracture risk
BMJ • 2007
PMID: 17720017.0
⚠ Dose is below commonly used clinical ranges
This is a limiting factor: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
⚠ 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
Pasricha et al. systematic review iron and fatigue in non-anaemic women
BMJ Open • 2012
PMID: 23169929.0
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
Zinc form is not clearly declared
Exact ingredient form is not disclosed on the label.
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 Protein Powder supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
