How we review

We review each product using the same evidence standards. Affiliate commissions do not determine our findings or scores.

How we check seller websites

We check where the product is sold by following the seller’s links to its order form and comparing the payment service, legal pages, and business details. We also record copycat websites, alternate seller pages, unauthorized marketplace listings, and inactive addresses. Records include observed titles, registration dates, and screenshots where available.

Each review and product verification page shows the verified purchase route near the top. A third-party page may still lead to the seller’s real checkout; we explain that distinction. Our records describe the date of checking, because websites and ownership can change.

What a verification record establishes

A screenshot records what a particular website displayed at the check. A linked order form establishes the purchase route we observed. Neither proves who owns a third-party page or predicts how a supplement will work. Our catalog covers the products we investigated, rather than a representative sample of the supplement market.

To reproduce a finding, use the review's dated verification log, label caption, observed-domain list and screenshot links. Check the current seller and terms separately: a later visit may differ. The comparison tables use the same review records for scores, formula disclosure, smallest orders and refund deadlines.

1. Check the label

We identify the source of the Supplement Facts panel and record its contents. If a blend omits individual amounts, we explain which comparisons cannot be made.

2. Check the claims

We assess product claims against the evidence and label them supported, plausible, unproven, or contradicted. Studies of an ingredient do not establish results from the complete product.

3. Compare ingredients with research

We compare label amounts and forms with human studies. Differences can limit how directly a result applies. A lower amount alone does not prove that an ingredient cannot help.

4. Customer experiences and refund terms

We summarize recurring positive and negative reports and identify their sources. Customer accounts are not clinical trials. We also explain refund deadlines, required returns, fees, and exclusions; a guarantee does not establish safety or effectiveness.

5. The Transparency Score

The Transparency Score runs from 0 to 100 using six recorded checks: a published label, individual amounts, a complete-product study, an identifiable manufacturer, clear refund terms, and third-party testing. The same calculation applies to every product.

6. How the rating works

The review rating uses the checklists below. Read the explanation alongside each score: a rating describes our assessment, rather than a promised result.

Category	What earns 5.0 — the checklist	What lowers the score
Ingredient quality	The main ingredients have human research at comparable amounts, with clearly named, standardized extracts where relevant. Each ingredient has a plausible role in the formula. At least 80% of active ingredients have human research, rather than only animal or laboratory findings The main ingredients use named or standardized extracts Each active ingredient has a plausible role in the stated purpose Amounts reach at least about 40% of the studied minimum: nearly all pass, about half earns partial credit, and amounts mostly below about 25% fail	Amounts are hidden in a proprietary blend, are too small to compare with research, or lack human evidence.
Label transparency	A public Supplement Facts label gives every active ingredient amount, identifies extract forms and names an accountable seller. This is stricter than dose disclosure alone, found on about 79% of labels in the NIH database. A third-party certificate of analysis goes further; about 7.5% of products provide one. Individual amounts are disclosed: almost all pass, most earns partial credit, and half or fewer fail. Ingredients hidden in blends count as undisclosed Extract details are given, such as 100:1 or 1.5% withanolides An accountable legal entity or payment processor such as ClickBank or BuyGoods can be identified, with an address and support contact The Supplement Facts label can be read before purchase	The ingredient list or amounts are hidden, or the manufacturer cannot be identified.
Evidence support	Independent human studies support the main ingredients at the amounts in the product. Formulas using researched extracts such as KSM-66, LJ100 or Testofen can meet this standard. A trial of the complete product goes further; about 1–5% of products have one. The main ingredients have human research: independent studies earn full credit, while manufacturer-linked studies earn partial credit Main ingredient amounts reach at least 80% of the studied range for full credit, about 40–80% for partial credit, and below 40% fail Published evidence does not contradict a marketed claim	No ingredient has human research, or published studies contradict the claims.
Value	The daily price is at or below the category median, and the main ingredient amounts can be verified against research. Daily cost is at or below the category median The price is reasonable for what the label discloses There is no forced repeat delivery or hidden billing term	A high price for a formula with hidden or below-study amounts.
Refund safety	A third-party payment processor enforces a guarantee of at least 60 days, accepts empty bottles and has documented successful refunds. A 180-day or longer policy goes further. Return authorization and buyer-paid return shipping are normal conditions and do not reduce this score. The refund period is at least 60 days; a shorter period fails this check A third-party processor such as ClickBank or BuyGoods enforces the policy Empty bottles are accepted Successful refunds are documented, with no restocking or penalty fees	No guarantee, unverifiable seller-only terms, or documented refusals to honor refunds.
Track record	The product has maintained strong demand for at least 12 months, compared with an approximately six-month median lifespan in this market. Products younger than about 12 months receive N/A rather than a penalty. At least 12 months of continuous market presence; otherwise N/A Strong demand has continued, rather than the product simply remaining available The product is not a renamed version of a previously failed offer	A renamed version of a previously failed offer, or demand that fell sharply soon after launch.

When information cannot yet be assessed: a category receives N/A and is excluded from the overall score. For example, a three-month-old product cannot yet earn a long-term track-record score. Missing amounts on a label are treated differently, as explained in the checklist.

How we set the criteria: our 5.0 standard is based on practices seen in the market. The cited NIH label database contains more than 155,000 labels, with roughly 79% disclosing ingredient amounts. Our label standard also requires extract details and an identifiable manufacturer. Third-party certification, found in about 7.5% of products, and complete-product trials, estimated at 1–5%, exceed the basic standard. We plan to publish measured rates from our own reviews as coverage grows.

Lower scores: most established products fall between 3.0 and 4.5 under our method. Scores below 3.0 can reflect verification failures, unhonored refunds, dangerous claims, or unclear company identity. Read the findings to see the reason for a specific score.

How the overall rating is calculated: verified products with working checkout and refund terms have a minimum of 3.0 on purchase-related categories. Evidence support has no such minimum: a real product does not earn research credit without evidence. A formula with no individual amounts disclosed cannot exceed 4.1 overall. Verified bundle extras can add at most 0.1. These purchase-related rules do not establish safety or effectiveness.

Score band	What it means
4.5+	Exceptional — rare
4.0–4.4	Strong score — minor caveats
3.5–3.9	Good with real caveats
3.0–3.4	Marginal — significant gaps
<3.0	Serious problems — counterfeit products, refused refunds or dangerous claims

7. Scientific review

Editorial checks cover the label, checkout, refund terms, and customer records. A licensed physician separately checks ingredient, dose, and safety sections against the cited research. Pages with current scientific approval show the reviewer’s name and review date. See the reviewer’s profile and scope.

Sources: we use labels and legal pages, peer-reviewed research, official health and regulatory statements, and public complaint records. These include PubMed and journal records, FDA, EFSA, NIH ODS, and CDC sources. Seller claims are attributed to the seller. Reference checks confirm that each link identifies the paper named; that is separate from assessing what the paper supports.

Updates and scientific review: edits after scientific approval mark the page as awaiting review and remove the current reviewer credit until approval is renewed. Content is rechecked when formulas, prices, or research change, with scientific review renewed within 24 months.

How we write reviews and verdicts

We explain what the product is, its verified strengths, its evidence limits, and its safety concerns in plain language. Claims remain attributed, and documented contradictions stay visible.

The opening gives the main assessment and relevant cautions first. Product evidence and website checks have separate sections. Missing research is not proof of no effect, and ingredient research is not proof that the whole formula works.

Corrections

If you find an error or a changed label, price, or formula, contact us. We verify corrections, update the page, and note the change.