Method
How we rate
Published in full, because a rating you cannot audit is just an opinion with a number attached.
Ten formulas, not one
A protein bar, a pre-workout and an electrolyte mix are not comparable on the same axes, so they are not scored on the same axes. Every ranking carries its own weighting, all of them below, and each produces a score out of ten. An electrolyte powder has no dose-integrity component at all, because auditing a hydration mix against clinical-dose thresholds written for 15-active formulas would measure nothing; a hair-support product leans hardest on dose integrity, because that is the axis its shelf actually differs on.
| Protein Powders | Weight | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Value | 40% | Cost per gram of protein, ranked against the category |
| Formula | 35% | Protein per calorie, sugar alcohol load, spiking signals, third-party certification |
| Consensus | 25% | Buyer rating from the brand’s own storefront or its retail listing (source-linked), minimum 25 reviews, count and source printed on every product page |
| Protein Bars | Weight | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Value | 40% | Cost per gram of protein, ranked against the category |
| Formula | 35% | Protein per calorie, sugar alcohol load, spiking signals, third-party certification |
| Consensus | 25% | Buyer rating from the brand’s own storefront or its retail listing (source-linked), minimum 25 reviews, count and source printed on every product page |
| Protein Snacks | Weight | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Value | 40% | Cost per gram of protein, ranked against the category |
| Formula | 35% | Protein per calorie, sugar alcohol load, spiking signals, third-party certification |
| Consensus | 25% | Buyer rating from the brand’s own storefront or its retail listing (source-linked), minimum 25 reviews, count and source printed on every product page |
| Pre-Workouts | Weight | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Dose integrity | 45% | Share of key actives meeting clinical thresholds, minus a blend penalty |
| Value | 30% | Cost per fully dosed serving, ranked against the category |
| Consensus | 25% | Buyer rating from the brand’s own storefront or its retail listing (source-linked), minimum 25 reviews, count and source printed on every product page |
| Energy Drinks | Weight | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Value | 40% | Cost per can, ranked against the category |
| Formula | 35% | Sugar load, calorie load, and whether the panel discloses its caffeine content |
| Consensus | 25% | Buyer rating from the brand’s own storefront or its retail listing (source-linked), minimum 25 reviews, count and source printed on every product page |
| Creatine | Weight | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Value | 45% | Cost per gram of creatine, ranked against the category — not per gram of everything else in the tub, so a creatine sold with HMB or betaine answers on the creatine you are actually buying |
| Dose integrity | 20% | Share of key actives meeting clinical thresholds, minus a blend penalty |
| Label disclosure | 20% | Share of the actives the label puts a number against. An amount hidden in a proprietary blend, or simply not stated, scores zero here rather than counting as missing data — non-disclosure is a fact about a label, not an absence of one |
| Consensus | 15% | Buyer rating from the brand’s own storefront or its retail listing (source-linked), minimum 25 reviews, count and source printed on every product page |
| Skin Support | Weight | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Label disclosure | 35% | Share of the actives the label puts a number against. An amount hidden in a proprietary blend, or simply not stated, scores zero here rather than counting as missing data — non-disclosure is a fact about a label, not an absence of one |
| Value | 30% | Cost per gram of the labelled active, ranked against the category |
| Dose integrity | 20% | Share of key actives meeting clinical thresholds, minus a blend penalty |
| Consensus | 15% | Buyer rating from the brand’s own storefront or its retail listing (source-linked), minimum 25 reviews, count and source printed on every product page |
| Body Composition Support | Weight | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Dose integrity | 40% | Share of key actives meeting clinical thresholds, minus a blend penalty |
| Value | 30% | Cost per fully dosed serving, ranked against the category |
| Label disclosure | 15% | Share of the actives the label puts a number against. An amount hidden in a proprietary blend, or simply not stated, scores zero here rather than counting as missing data — non-disclosure is a fact about a label, not an absence of one |
| Consensus | 15% | Buyer rating from the brand’s own storefront or its retail listing (source-linked), minimum 25 reviews, count and source printed on every product page |
| Electrolytes | Weight | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Value | 40% | Cost per gram of sodium, ranked against the category — sodium is the one electrolyte a Nutrition Facts panel must quantify, so it is the only like-for-like denominator |
| Label disclosure | 25% | Share of the actives the label puts a number against. An amount hidden in a proprietary blend, or simply not stated, scores zero here rather than counting as missing data — non-disclosure is a fact about a label, not an absence of one |
| Formula | 20% | Sugar load and calorie load per serving, read from the panel |
| Consensus | 15% | Buyer rating from the brand’s own storefront or its retail listing (source-linked), minimum 25 reviews, count and source printed on every product page |
| BCAA & EAA | Weight | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Value | 40% | Cost per gram of essential amino acids, ranked against the category — counting the nine essential aminos and nothing else, so a tub padded with glutamine, taurine or coconut water answers on the aminos you are actually buying. The BCAAs are three of the nine, so a BCAA and a full EAA formula are priced on the same denominator |
| Dose integrity | 25% | Share of key actives meeting clinical thresholds, minus a blend penalty |
| Label disclosure | 20% | Share of the actives the label puts a number against. An amount hidden in a proprietary blend, or simply not stated, scores zero here rather than counting as missing data — non-disclosure is a fact about a label, not an absence of one |
| Consensus | 15% | Buyer rating from the brand’s own storefront or its retail listing (source-linked), minimum 25 reviews, count and source printed on every product page |
A missing component is never scored as zero. Where a component cannot be computed — no verified price, no machine-readable buyer rating, a formula too sparse to audit — its weight is redistributed across the components that exist rather than counted against the product. A product we know little about stays distinguishable from a product we know is bad, and the page says which.
Fully scored products rank first. Redistributing a missing component’s weight keeps a score honest on its own page, but it means the product was never measured on that axis — a product with no verified price has not been compared on price at all. So every ranking lists products scored on every component first, then those scored on at least 60% of the weighting, then the rest. Within each group, the higher composite ranks higher. Every row prints how much of the weighting its score covers.
Below that, no score is printed at all. Redistribution has a limit. A health-support product measurable only on label disclosure — a tenth of that category’s weighting — was published as a 10.00, because the arithmetic handed one component the entire score. It ranked where it belonged, near the bottom, while printing the largest number on the page. “We could not measure this” is not the same statement as “this is perfect”, so where too little of the weighting could be computed the number is withheld and the coverage is shown in its place. The ranking order does not change; the figure simply is not published, for the same reason a dose or a price is not published when the label does not support it.
A ranking needs enough published scores. A category is published only once at least 15 of its products carry a published score (8 for hair support, where fewer scoreable products exist to be bought). Products whose score is withheld do not count toward that, because a ranking is only as large as the scores it prints. Not published today: hair support (0 of 8), health support (7 of 15).
A dose threshold never comes from people with a diagnosed condition. Where the only published dose for an active was studied in people with a medical condition, it is not a threshold for anyone else, so the active is recognised and named on the product page but not scored. That applies today to 10 actives: Huperzine A, EPA + DHA (combined), Niacinamide, Minoxidil, Biotin, Psyllium Husk, N-Acetylcysteine, Silymarin (Milk Thistle), Saw Palmetto, Ketoconazole.
Cost per gram of protein
Price divided by the total protein in the package. Nothing more sophisticated, and that is the point — it is the number that decides whether a product is good value, and almost nobody displays it.
A 12-count box at $24.99 with 21 g of protein per bar holds 252 g of protein, which is $0.099 per gram. Rankings are percentile-based within a category, so a product is measured against its actual competition rather than an arbitrary threshold.
Where a product is sold in several sizes, its value is the lowest cost per unit among the sizes on sale up to 5 kg (11 lb). Larger bags — some powders are sold in 20 and 25 kg bags — are wholesale quantities: the product page lists them, marked as not used in the value score.
Where a package size cannot be determined with confidence, the result is left empty rather than estimated. An empty cell is honest; a plausible wrong number is not.
Clinical dose thresholds
Each active is measured against the dose used in published research, not against a marketing claim. The thresholds and their sources:
| Ingredient | Clinical dose | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Alpha-GPC | 300 mg | Ziegenfuss et al., J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2008 — 300-600 mg (peer-reviewed trial) |
| Ashwagandha (KSM-66) | 600 mg | Wankhede et al., J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2015;12:43 — 300 mg twice daily (600 mg/day) (peer-reviewed trial) |
| Beta-Alanine | 3.2 g | Trexler et al., ISSN Position Stand 2015 — 3.2 g/day maintenance (position stand) |
| Betaine Anhydrous | 2.5 g | Cholewa et al., J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2013 — 2.5 g/day (peer-reviewed trial) |
| Caffeine | 200 mg | Guest et al., ISSN Position Stand 2021 — 3-6 mg/kg; 200 mg floor (position stand) |
| Choline Bitartrate | 2 g | Naber, Hommel & Colzato, Sci Rep 2015;5:13188 — trial dosing 2 g (peer-reviewed trial) |
| Citrulline Malate 2:1 | 8 g | Perez-Guisado & Jakeman, J Strength Cond Res 2010 — 8 g citrulline malate (peer-reviewed trial) |
| Collagen Peptides (audited on Skin Support only) | 2.5 g | Proksch et al., Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2014;27:47-55 — randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial dosing 2.5 g and 5.0 g/day for 8 weeks (peer-reviewed trial) |
| Creatine HCl | 5 g | Londono-Velasquez et al., J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2025 (ISSN Conference abstract, not yet full peer review) — 5 g/day, matched head-to-head against creatine monohydrate at the same dose in elite team-sport athletes (conference abstract, not yet peer reviewed) |
| Creatine Monohydrate | 5 g | Kreider et al., ISSN Position Stand 2017 — 3-5 g/day maintenance (position stand) |
| Digestive Enzyme Blend | 150 mg | Majeed et al., Sports Nutr & Therapeutics 2016;1(3):113 — 50 mg three times daily (150 mg/day) DigeZyme (peer-reviewed trial) |
| EGCG (Epigallocatechin Gallate) | 300 mg | Br J Nutr — "The effects of green tea extract supplementation on body composition, obesity-related hormones and oxidative stress markers: a grade-assessed systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials" (systematic review) |
| Glucomannan | 3 g | EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies, EFSA Journal 2010;8(10):1798 — health claim upheld only at 3 g/day, taken as three 1 g doses with water before meals (guideline) |
| HMB | 3 g | Wilson et al., J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2013 (ISSN Position Stand) — 3 g/day beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (position stand) |
| L-Carnitine (audited on Body Composition Support only) | 2 g | Talenezhad N, Mohammadi M, Ramezani-Jolfaie N, Mozaffari-Khosravi H, Salehi-Abargouei A. Clin Nutr ESPEN 2020;37:9-23 (PMID 32359762) — dose-response meta-analysis of 37 randomised controlled trials in 2,292 participants; the dose-response flattens at 2,000 mg/day (systematic review) |
| L-Carnitine L-Tartrate | 2 g | Volek et al., Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2002;282:E474-482 — 2 g/day attenuated exercise-induced muscle damage markers (peer-reviewed trial) |
| L-Citrulline | 6 g | Bailey et al., J Appl Physiol 2015 — trial dosing 6 g/day (peer-reviewed trial) |
| L-Leucine (audited on BCAA & EAA only) | 3 g | Jäger et al., ISSN Position Stand 2017 (J Int Soc Sports Nutr 14:20) — acute doses should contain 700-3000 mg leucine alongside a balanced array of the essential amino acids (position stand) |
| L-Theanine | 100 mg | Giesbrecht et al., Nutr Neurosci 2010 — 97 mg paired with caffeine (peer-reviewed trial) |
| L-Tyrosine | 1 g | Jongkees et al., J Psychiatr Res 2015 — review of stress/cognitive-demand studies; acute dosing from 1 g (systematic review) |
| Nitrosigine | 1.5 g | Rood-Ojalvo et al., J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2015;12(Suppl 1):P14 (ISSN Conference abstract, not yet full peer review) — 1,500 mg/day inositol-stabilized arginine silicate (conference abstract, not yet peer reviewed) |
| Retinol | 0.3 mg | Randhawa et al., Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2020;33:102-110 — clinically controlled comparison of 0.3% and 0.5% retinol serums (peer-reviewed trial) |
| Rhodiola Rosea | 200 mg | Koozehchian et al., Nutrients 2025;17(23):3736 — 200 mg/day, low end of the two doses tested (200 vs 1,500 mg) in resistance-trained adults (peer-reviewed trial) |
| Taurine | 1 g | Waldron et al., Sports Med 2018 — meta-analysis; 1-3 g acute pre-exercise (systematic review) |
| Theacrine | 200 mg | Taylor et al., J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2016;13:2 — 200 mg/day, low end of the two doses tested over 7 days (peer-reviewed trial) |
| Vitamin C (L-Ascorbic Acid, topical) | 20 mg | Pinnell et al., Dermatol Surg 2001;27:137-142 — percutaneous absorption of topical L-ascorbic acid; absorption was maximal at 20% (peer-reviewed trial) |
| Vitamin D3 (Cholecalciferol) | 600 mg | Institute of Medicine, Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D (2011) — RDA 600 IU/day for ages 1-70, 800 IU/day for 71 and older (guideline) |
Some thresholds only hold for one kind of product, and are only applied there. 3 of the 27 above are scoped that way, marked in the table. Leucine’s range is stated for an acute protein dose alongside a balanced array of the essential amino acids, so it is audited on the amino shelf and not against a pre-workout that happens to contain leucine. Collagen’s is a skin-elasticity endpoint, so it is not used to judge the sixteen protein bars that list collagen as a protein source. Citing a trial at a product it was not measured on would be a wrong number wearing a citation.
An active can be recognised without being scored. Where the research establishes no threshold, or where a label states a raw material without the standardised fraction the threshold is written in, the ingredient is named on the product page and left out of the dose average — rather than being scored zero for containing something nobody has a number for, or credited at a weight that is not the active. These 30 are recognised and never scored:
| Ingredient | Why it is not scored |
|---|---|
| Acetyl-L-Carnitine | the 2,000 mg dose-response applies to free L-carnitine, and this is a different material |
| Biotin | no established dose outside diagnosed deficiency |
| Cod Liver Oil (EPA/DHA not declared) | research doses combined EPA+DHA, and this row declares neither |
| Curcumin | the dose trials used depends on the formulation, so one milligram figure would not mean the same thing twice |
| EPA + DHA (combined) | the published dose comes from studies in people with a diagnosed condition, so it is not a threshold for anyone else |
| Green Tea Extract (EGCG fraction not declared) | the threshold is EGCG content, and this row declares no EGCG figure |
| Huperzine A | the published dose comes from studies in people with a diagnosed condition, so it is not a threshold for anyone else |
| Hyaluronic Acid | no concentration-response is established, and molecular weight is not disclosed |
| Ketoconazole | the published dose comes from studies in people with a diagnosed condition, so it is not a threshold for anyone else |
| Konjac Root (glucomannan fraction not declared) | the threshold is glucomannan, and this row states the root material without declaring how much of it is glucomannan |
| L-Histidine | no per-amino threshold established for supplementation |
| L-Isoleucine | no per-amino threshold established for supplementation |
| L-Lysine | no per-amino threshold established for supplementation |
| L-Methionine | no per-amino threshold established for supplementation |
| L-Phenylalanine | no per-amino threshold established for supplementation |
| L-Threonine | no per-amino threshold established for supplementation |
| L-Tryptophan | no per-amino threshold established for supplementation |
| L-Valine | no per-amino threshold established for supplementation |
| Magnesium | replacement need is individual |
| Milk Thistle Extract (silymarin fraction not declared) | research doses silymarin content, and this row declares no silymarin figure |
| Minoxidil | the published dose comes from studies in people with a diagnosed condition, so it is not a threshold for anyone else |
| N-Acetylcysteine | the published dose comes from studies in people with a diagnosed condition, so it is not a threshold for anyone else |
| Niacinamide | the published dose comes from studies in people with a diagnosed condition, so it is not a threshold for anyone else |
| Potassium | replacement need is individual |
| Psyllium Husk | the published dose comes from studies in people with a diagnosed condition, so it is not a threshold for anyone else |
| Pumpkin Seed Oil | no dose-ranging trial establishes a threshold |
| Saw Palmetto | the published dose comes from studies in people with a diagnosed condition, so it is not a threshold for anyone else |
| Saw Palmetto (powder, or material not declared) | the trials dosed a standardised lipophilic extract, and this row is not declared to be one |
| Silymarin (Milk Thistle) | the published dose comes from studies in people with a diagnosed condition, so it is not a threshold for anyone else |
| Sodium | replacement need is individual |
Citrulline malate and free L-citrulline are tracked separately. They are not interchangeable, and treating them as one misstates the delivered dose — which would undermine the whole exercise.
Exceeding a clinical dose does not raise a score. Meeting it is the bar; megadosing is not a virtue we reward.
Proprietary blends
An ingredient inside a proprietary blend has no disclosed dose, so it is scored as undosed rather than assumed adequate, and the product carries a fixed penalty on top. This is the single largest lever a brand controls: disclosing your doses improves your score, and there is no way to score well while hiding them.
Spiking signals
Where free-form aminos appear high in an ingredient list, the page names what was observed and why it matters, and links the panel. It is a flagged signal with its evidence, never an accusation of fraud. Where the ingredient order cannot be established reliably, no signal is raised and the page says the check was not run — rather than reporting a clean bill of health it did not earn.
Rules we do not break
Every published number traces to a captured source. A product page renders only after its panel has been read and stored, so a rating can always be checked against the label it came from.
A panel is captured one of two ways, and every product page names which. Most are read from the label image by two independent readers, and nothing publishes unless both recorded the same value — where they disagree, even on one ingredient, the product is held back rather than published with a number we are unsure of. A minority come from brands that publish their panel as machine-readable data on their own product page, which is parsed directly; there is no second reading to disagree with, because there is no image being interpreted. Each product page prints its extraction path under Provenance, so the distinction is never hidden behind an average.
No rating, review count, or score is ever invented. Where evidence is thin the page says insufficient data, which is always an acceptable answer here. Star ratings are never fabricated to decorate a listing.
A reformulation silently invalidates an audit. When one comes to light — through a correction or a re-read — the product is re-read from scratch before anything about it is republished. Every price and buyer rating prints the date it was captured, so its age is never hidden, and a label image the brand has since taken down is linked from an archived copy or marked as removed.
Commission does not buy a rating. Some links earn us a commission and those pages say so. No brand can pay for a score, raise one, or remove one, and products are rated the same whether or not there is money attached.