Confidence: 77%
B09NCL8S5H
View on Amazon →Decision summary
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker dosing makes better alternatives worth comparing.
Best for
People prioritizing high absorption and overall formula quality.
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
5.2/10Acceptable 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).
Vitamin-d: high-bioavailability form declared (Cholecalciferol (D3)). The main limitation is that proprietary blend prevents independent dose verification.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker dosing 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.
ℹ Dose is within established clinical ranges, but lacks direct studies
Strong contributor: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The declared form supports strong absorption.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
⚠ 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
✔ 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
✔ Clinically effective dose with strong supporting evidence
This is a limiting factor: Dose is directionally useful, but not a standout strength. 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
ℹ Dose is within established clinical ranges, but lacks direct studies
One of the weaker points: 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.
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
Proprietary blend limits dose transparency
Exact ingredient amounts cannot be verified clearly.
Vitamin D dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Vitamin K2 form is not clearly declared
Exact ingredient form is not disclosed on the label.
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.
