Confidence: 68%
B0CJRMNNZK
View on Amazon →Decision summary
Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker formulation coherence.
Best for
Only budget-focused buyers with flexible standards.
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
3.7/10Dosing 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 3.7/10 · Bioavailability 3/10 · Coherence 2/10
Dose quality suggests a diluted formulation.
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.
Vitamin-d: high-bioavailability form declared (Cholecalciferol (D3)). The main limitation is that vitamin-d: below clinically studied range.
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.
⚠ 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
ℹ Evidence is strong, but dose is below the optimal range
A clear drag on the formula: Dose is below the ranges usually used for stronger effects. 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
✔ 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 directionally useful, but not a standout strength. 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
⚠ 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
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
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.
Calcium 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.
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.
