Confidence: 56%
B0CCYYP5LK
View on Amazon →SuppScoreLab compares supplement products for informational purposes. We do not sell products directly, and some links may take you to third-party retailers.
Decision summary
Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker formulation coherence.
Best for
Very few buyers — better options are usually available.
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
1.7/10Dosing 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).
Explore next
Dose 1.7/10 · Bioavailability 0.4/10 · Coherence 0/10
Dose quality suggests a diluted formulation.
Ingredient form quality suggests suboptimal ingredient forms.
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 formula coherence is weak: diluted, decorative or overly complex.
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.
✔ Dose aligned with moderate supporting evidence
Supports the formula, but not a major driver: Clinical dosing guidance is limited for this ingredient.
Scientific evidence
Pea proteins oral supplementation promotes muscle thickness gains during resistance training: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial vs. whey protein
J Int Soc Sports Nutr • 2015
PMID: 25628520.0
ℹ At the minimum effective range, but below the optimal dose; evidence is strong
Dose meets the minimum effective range, but is below the optimal dose used for stronger effects. One of the weaker points: 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
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
⚠ 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
⚠ Dose is below commonly used clinical ranges
Dose is below the minimum effective threshold. A clear drag on the formula: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
ℹ At the minimum effective range, but below the optimal dose with moderate supporting evidence
Dose meets the minimum effective range, but is below the optimal dose used for stronger effects. One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
Scientific evidence
Clarke et al. meta-analysis B vitamins and cognitive decline
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition • 2007
PMID: 22243457.0
Shipton & Thachil review of vitamin B12 deficiency and fatigue
Postgraduate Medical Journal • 2015
PMID: 20648714.0
⚠ Moderate evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
Dose is below the minimum effective threshold. One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels.
Scientific evidence
Bryan et al. RCT on B vitamins and cognitive function in older adults
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition • 2002
PMID: 16920179.0
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.
Vitamin D dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Calcium 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.
