We Analyzed 278 Supplements. Here's What We Found

Out of 278 products analyzed, only 31% scored above 7/10. The average product score was 6.2. That means most supplements you see on shelves are... fine. Not great. Not terrible. Just mediocre.

Here's the breakdown:

Score distribution:
- 9-10 (Excellent): 8% of products
- 8-8.9 (Very Good): 14%
- 7-7.9 (Good): 22%
- 6-6.9 (Decent): 28%
- 5-5.9 (Below Average): 18%
- Below 5 (Poor/Avoid): 10%

That bottom 28%? Products that either underdose key ingredients, use poor forms, or make claims that the research doesn't support. You're paying full price for partial results.

42% of products we analyzed had at least one key ingredient below the clinically studied dose. This is the supplement industry's dirty secret. They put just enough of a trendy ingredient to list it on the label, but not enough to do anything.

Magnesium products were the worst offenders. We found products claiming "complete magnesium support" with 100mg per serving. Studies use 300-400mg. You'd need to take 3-4 servings per day to get a clinical dose. At that rate, a $25 bottle lasts a week.

Multivitamins weren't much better. Most include vitamin D at 400-800 IU. Research consistently shows 2,000-5,000 IU is needed for most adults to reach optimal levels.

The takeaway: always check the dose per serving against clinical evidence. Our ingredient pages show you exactly what studies used.

The form of an ingredient can make a 20x difference in absorption. We tracked this across all 278 products. Some examples that stood out.

Magnesium oxide vs glycinate: 4% vs 80% bioavailability. We found 34% of magnesium products use oxide as the primary form. It's the cheapest option, and your body barely absorbs it.

Curcumin: plain turmeric extract has terrible absorption. Products using Meriva or C3 Complex scored significantly higher because bioavailability tech makes the difference between "detectable in blood" and "not really."

CoQ10: ubiquinol vs ubiquinone. If you're over 40, your body has a harder time converting ubiquinone. Products using ubiquinol scored better for the 40+ demographic.

Products scoring 8+ share three traits: clinical doses, quality forms, and honest labeling. No proprietary blends. No "pixie dust" ingredients. Just the right stuff at the right amounts.

The top-scoring products tended to:
- Use researched forms (not the cheapest generic)
- Dose key ingredients at or above clinical thresholds
- Have fewer ingredients at proper doses (rather than 30 underdosed ones)
- Include third-party testing (USP, NSF, or ConsumerLab)
- Be transparent about exact amounts (no proprietary blends)

Interestingly, price didn't predict quality. Some $60 products scored 5/10. Some $25 products scored 8+. The correlation between price and score was weak (r = 0.23). You're often paying for marketing, not better ingredients.

Protein powders scored the highest average (7.8/10). Testosterone boosters scored the lowest (4.1/10). Here's how each category fared:

- Protein/Amino Acids 7.8 avg. Hard to mess up protein. Most products deliver what they promise.
- Sleep Supplements - 6.9 avg. Decent, but many underdose magnesium and overdose melatonin.
- Joint Support. 6.7 avg. UC-II collagen products scored well. Glucosamine + chondroitin combos were all over the map.
- Multivitamins 6.3 avg. The "everything but nothing" problem. Too many ingredients, none at clinical doses.
- Weight Loss - 4.8 avg. Mostly caffeine with trendy but unproven additions.
- Testosterone Boosters. 4.1 avg. Marketing-heavy, evidence-light. Most active ingredients lack human trials.

The pattern is clear: the more specific a product's purpose, the better it tends to score. "Does everything" products rarely do anything well.