Our Methodology
How we choose, analyze and score the health supplements we review — the same process, applied consistently to every product, from every brand.
Principles we don't compromise on
Every reviewer follows the same rules. Every product is judged against published evidence, not marketing.
Independence
We review. We accept no payment or gifts from brands in exchange for coverage or scoring.
Evidence first
Human clinical trials are weighted above animal studies, industry white papers and anecdote.
Transparency
Every claim links back to a study, a certification, or an on-label disclosure a reader can verify.
Correction & humility
Reviews are dated, versioned, and openly corrected when we get something wrong.
Six steps, every product, no shortcuts
A review isn't published until each stage is signed off. Editors cannot skip steps, and business or affiliate teams have no input on scoring.
-
01
Product intake & sourcing
Every product is purchased anonymously from the manufacturer or an authorized retailer. We record batch numbers, expiration dates and country of manufacture before it ever reaches an editor.
-
02
Formula & label audit
We transcribe every active ingredient, its dosage and delivery form. Proprietary blends are flagged. We compare disclosed amounts against clinically studied doses in peer-reviewed literature.
-
03
Evidence review
Our research team maps each ingredient to human clinical trials indexed in PubMed, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov. Animal, in-vitro and industry-funded studies are noted separately.
-
04
Manufacturing & quality signals
We verify GMP certification, third-party testing (USP, NSF, Informed Sport), allergen handling and manufacturer transparency around COAs.
-
05
Claims & marketing scrutiny
Every advertised benefit is graded against the underlying evidence. Overreach, cherry-picked studies and disease claims are called out explicitly.
-
06
Editorial review & scoring
A second editor and a licensed clinician sign off on the final review. Scores are locked before pricing or affiliate terms are reviewed by the business team.
How we score
Our Editorial Rating is never a general impression — it's the exact weighted average of five audited pillars, calculated on a scale of 1.0 to 5.0.
| Pillar | Weight | What we look at |
|---|---|---|
| Formula quality | 30% | Ingredient selection, clinically relevant dosing, delivery form and stack coherence. |
| Scientific evidence | 25% | Strength, independence and human-relevance of the studies supporting each claim. |
| Manufacturing & safety | 20% | GMP, third-party testing, allergen controls, contamination risk and recall history. |
| Transparency | 15% | Full label disclosure, published COAs, sourcing clarity and honest marketing. |
| Value | 10% | Cost per clinically relevant dose, subscription terms and refund policy. |
How the 1.0 to 5.0 Score is Calculated
Our Editorial Rating is never a general impression — it's the exact weighted average of five audited pillars. Each pillar is graded on a strict 1.0 to 5.0 scale, and the final score is mathematically calculated using our assigned weights:
| Pillar | Score Range | Weight | Calculation Rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Formula Quality | 1.0 to 5.0 | 30% | Assigned Score × 0.30 |
| Scientific Evidence | 1.0 to 5.0 | 25% | Assigned Score × 0.25 |
| Manufacturing & Safety | 1.0 to 5.0 | 20% | Assigned Score × 0.20 |
| Transparency | 1.0 to 5.0 | 15% | Assigned Score × 0.15 |
| Value | 1.0 to 5.0 | 10% | Assigned Score × 0.10 |
| Final Score | 1.0 to 5.0 | 100% | Sum of all 5 weighted values |
What the 1.0 to 5.0 scale means:
5.0 (Exceptional): Represents the gold standard. Fully transparent formulas, clinically effective doses, robust third-party testing, and impeccable safety records.
4.0 (Great): High-quality products that hit almost all marks, but may lack a specific certification or have minor gaps in human trial data for secondary claims.
3.0 (Average): Standard industry offerings. They may use proprietary blends, underdose certain supportive ingredients, or lack independent third-party lab verification.
2.0 (Poor): Significant issues present. Often heavily underdosed, relying entirely on animal studies, or utilizing opaque labeling practices.
1.0 (Fail): Unsafe or deceptive. Products with FDA warning letters, proven contamination, hidden ingredients, or completely unsubstantiated medical claims.
Conflicts of interest & disclosures
We believe readers deserve to know exactly how we're funded and where our incentives lie. Our full policy is public.
No paid placements
Brands cannot buy a review, a higher score, or homepage placement.
Affiliate transparency
Where affiliate links exist, they are disclosed at the top of every page.
Editorial firewall
Business teams have no visibility into scoring drafts and no editorial vote.
Author disclosures
Every author page lists prior industry work, credentials and grant history.
Frequently asked
Common questions about how we work.
Do brands pay to be reviewed?
No. We do not accept payment, gifts or free product in exchange for a review, a score, or preferential placement. Editorial and business teams are separated by policy.
Do you use affiliate links?
Some reviews contain affiliate links. Affiliate relationships are disclosed on every page and never influence our scoring, which is locked before commercial terms are reviewed.
How often are reviews updated?
Every review is revisited at least once every 12 months, or immediately when a formula change, safety signal, or major new study is published.
Can I request a correction?
Yes. We publish a correction policy and a contact address on every review. Substantive corrections are dated and logged at the bottom of the article.
Read a review that uses this methodology
See how the process plays out on a real product — every score traced back to a study, a certification, or a label disclosure.