Review methodology
SuppCheckr assigns a score out of 100 using weighted editorial criteria. Scores summarize label transparency, dose clarity, formula quality, testing evidence, source quality, price/value, additives, claim conservatism, and brand transparency — not medical efficacy or personal suitability.
What SuppCheckr scores
Each product review evaluates nine criteria. The labels below match what you see on product score breakdowns.
- Ingredient transparency: How clearly the label identifies active ingredients and forms (for example, creatine monohydrate, magnesium glycinate, vitamin C as ascorbic acid, or sodium and potassium on electrolyte drink mixes).
- Dose transparency: How clearly the label states the active dose per serving — grams of creatine, milligrams of elemental magnesium, milligrams of vitamin C, core electrolyte milligrams per serving, or equivalent.
- Evidence alignment: How conservatively product and category claims align with publicly available evidence and source standards. We reward cautious, cited language over hype.
- Formula quality/simplicity: Formula simplicity, clarity of ingredient list structure, and absence of unnecessary complexity or proprietary blends that hide amounts.
- Third-party testing/certifications: Whether third-party testing or certification is verified, claimed only, or unknown based on public sources.
- Price/value: Dated manual price checks compared on a category-normalized basis (for example, price per 5 g creatine, per 100 mg elemental magnesium, per 500 mg vitamin C, or per labeled serving for electrolyte products).
- Additives/fillers/sweeteners: Presence and disclosure of fillers, sweeteners, artificial colors, and other non-active ingredients.
- Label clarity: Overall readability and completeness of Supplement Facts, serving size, servings per container, and related label details.
- Brand transparency: Brand contact information, manufacturing context, and willingness to document testing or quality practices when available.
How scoring works
- Category-specific scoring profiles exist. Creatine, Magnesium, Vitamin C, and Electrolytes can use different criterion weights because label priorities differ by supplement type.
- Scores are editorial comparison tools based on public product labels, official regulatory and reference sources, credible certification databases, and documented retailer or brand pages where appropriate.
- Prices are manually checked and dated — not live retailer feeds. See source standards for how sources are tiered.
- Scores help compare transparency, documentation, and value within a category. They are not medical recommendations.
- A higher score does not mean a product is best for every person, every goal, or every health context.
- Affiliate relationships do not determine scores. Some product pages include marked Amazon affiliate links; many outbound retailer links are not affiliate links. Affiliate availability does not affect editorial scoring.
What scores do not mean
- Scores are not medical advice or a substitute for a clinician.
- Scores are not a safety guarantee for any individual.
- Scores do not prove a product works for everyone or for a specific outcome.
- Scores do not recommend treating, preventing, or curing disease.
- Scores are not based on paid placement, sponsorship, or affiliate availability.
- Verified third-party testing noted in a review does not mean FDA approval or suitability for everyone. Testing scope (SKU, batch, lot, product line, or certification program) may differ — see testing statuses below.
Product ranking boundaries
SuppCheckr compares supplements on documented label and source facts. We avoid broad winner language that implies universal suitability.
- No “Best Overall” or “Best for Everyone” rankings.
- We avoid condition-based rankings (for example, “best for sleep” or “best for anxiety”) that imply medical outcomes.
- Comparison pages are label, source, testing, and value comparisons — not prescriptions or treatment guides.
- Products may appear in reviews even when affiliate purchase links are unavailable or disabled.
Third-party testing statuses
Product pages and comparison tables show a testing status based on what public sources support. Status definitions:
- Verified
- A credible third-party database, certificate, official program listing, or equivalent public source confirms the testing or certification for the relevant product, SKU, or documented scope.
- Claimed
- The brand or seller states that testing or certification exists, but SuppCheckr did not find a public verification source at review time.
- Unknown / not claimed
- No reliable public testing information was found, or the brand does not claim third-party testing. These are grouped in filters as “not claimed / unknown.”
Brand marketing claims alone do not equal verified testing. When a source gap exists, we document it rather than assuming verification. See source standards for how testing evidence is evaluated.
Default criteria weights
When no category-specific profile applies, SuppCheckr uses these default weights:
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Ingredient transparency | 12% |
| Dose transparency | 12% |
| Evidence alignment | 11% |
| Formula quality/simplicity | 11% |
| Third-party testing/certifications | 12% |
| Price/value | 12% |
| Additives/fillers/sweeteners | 9% |
| Label clarity | 10% |
| Brand transparency | 11% |
Category-specific scoring
Weights can vary by supplement category because label priorities differ. Published profiles currently include Creatine, Magnesium, Vitamin C, and Electrolytes:
CoQ10 scoring profile
CoQ10 profile — emphasizes CoQ10 form disclosure (ubiquinone vs ubiquinol), dose per serving clarity, label clarity, third-party testing verification, dated manual price per 100 mg CoQ10, claim conservatism, additive/allergen/oil-base disclosure, and serving practicality (softgel/capsule count). Price/value is computed as price per 100 mg CoQ10 (label-stated mg per serving — not absorption assumptions). Schema field mapping from editorial criteria: formTransparency → ingredientTransparency; doseClarity → doseTransparency; testingTransparency → thirdPartyTesting; claimConservatism + general evidence alignment → evidenceAlignment; additiveAndAllergenProfile → additives; servingPracticality → formulaQuality. See content/scoring/rubrics/coq10.yaml for editor rubric anchors. Do not score products until Phase 15B+ product research is complete.
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Ingredient transparency | 16% |
| Dose transparency | 14% |
| Evidence alignment | 14% |
| Formula quality/simplicity | 6% |
| Third-party testing/certifications | 12% |
| Price/value | 12% |
| Additives/fillers/sweeteners | 8% |
| Label clarity | 12% |
| Brand transparency | 6% |
Creatine scoring profile
Creatine profile — emphasizes dose transparency and third-party testing. See content/scoring/rubrics/creatine.yaml for editor rubric anchors.
Creatine scoring rewards straightforward creatine monohydrate dosing, verified third-party testing when available, clean and simple formulas, clear Supplement Facts, conservative claims, and competitive price per 5 g creatine equivalent from dated manual price checks.
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Ingredient transparency | 11% |
| Dose transparency | 17% |
| Evidence alignment | 9% |
| Formula quality/simplicity | 10% |
| Third-party testing/certifications | 15% |
| Price/value | 13% |
| Additives/fillers/sweeteners | 9% |
| Label clarity | 10% |
| Brand transparency | 6% |
Electrolytes scoring profile
Electrolytes profile — emphasizes sodium/potassium/magnesium dose transparency per serving, electrolyte composition clarity, sugar and sweetener disclosure, label clarity, testing verification, serving format practicality, and claim conservatism. Price/value is computed as price per serving (dated manual price — not live Amazon prices). Schema field mapping from editorial criteria: electrolyteTransparency → doseTransparency; sodiumPotassiumBalance → ingredientTransparency; sugarSweetenerProfile (+ colors/flavors) → additives; servingPracticality → formulaQuality. See content/scoring/rubrics/electrolytes.yaml for editor rubric anchors. Do not score products until Phase 14B+ product research is complete.
Electrolytes scoring rewards clear sodium, potassium, and magnesium disclosure per serving, sugar and sweetener profile on the label, serving format practicality (stick, tablet, or scoop), testing transparency, conservative hydration marketing claims, and competitive price per labeled serving from dated manual price checks — not medical rehydration positioning or high-sodium marketing alone.
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Ingredient transparency | 14% |
| Dose transparency | 18% |
| Evidence alignment | 10% |
| Formula quality/simplicity | 6% |
| Third-party testing/certifications | 10% |
| Price/value | 8% |
| Additives/fillers/sweeteners | 18% |
| Label clarity | 12% |
| Brand transparency | 4% |
Magnesium scoring profile
Magnesium profile — emphasizes elemental magnesium dose transparency, form identification, label clarity, testing verification, and claim conservatism. Price/value is computed as price per 100 mg elemental magnesium (label-stated elemental mg per serving — not compound or chelate weight, and not bioavailability assumptions). See content/scoring/rubrics/magnesium.yaml for editor rubric anchors.
Magnesium scoring rewards clear elemental magnesium disclosure (milligrams per serving), explicit magnesium form identification, practical serving sizes, testing transparency, conservative outcome claims, and competitive price per 100 mg elemental magnesium from dated manual price checks — not compound or chelate weight alone.
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Ingredient transparency | 16% |
| Dose transparency | 18% |
| Evidence alignment | 12% |
| Formula quality/simplicity | 8% |
| Third-party testing/certifications | 12% |
| Price/value | 12% |
| Additives/fillers/sweeteners | 4% |
| Label clarity | 14% |
| Brand transparency | 4% |
Vitamin C scoring profile
Vitamin C profile — emphasizes vitamin C dose transparency per serving, form identification (ascorbic acid, mineral ascorbates, liposomal), label clarity, testing verification, additive/sweetener profile, serving practicality, and claim conservatism. Price/value is computed as price per 500 mg vitamin C (label-stated mg per serving — not proprietary blend weight or absorption assumptions). Schema field mapping: ingredientTransparency = form clarity; formulaQuality = serving practicality and formula simplicity; additives = additive/sweetener profile. See content/scoring/rubrics/vitamin-c.yaml for editor rubric anchors.
Vitamin C scoring rewards clear vitamin C amount per serving (milligrams on Supplement Facts), explicit form identification (ascorbic acid, mineral ascorbates, liposomal, etc.), testing transparency, conservative outcome claims, additive and serving-practicality context, and competitive price per 500 mg vitamin C from dated manual price checks — not proprietary blend weight or absorption marketing alone.
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Ingredient transparency | 16% |
| Dose transparency | 16% |
| Evidence alignment | 12% |
| Formula quality/simplicity | 6% |
| Third-party testing/certifications | 12% |
| Price/value | 10% |
| Additives/fillers/sweeteners | 8% |
| Label clarity | 14% |
| Brand transparency | 6% |
Product information limitations
SuppCheckr does not guarantee real-time monitoring of recalls, warnings, formulation changes, label changes, retailer availability, or pricing changes. Users should check the current product label and consult the manufacturer, retailer, or a qualified healthcare professional before purchasing or using a supplement.
We may update product pages when we identify material label, sourcing, testing, price, affiliate, or availability changes. Dates shown on pages reflect the last documented review, source check, or price check where applicable.
Brand submissions and sponsorships
SuppCheckr does not currently accept payment from brands to change scores or rankings. If SuppCheckr ever receives free products, sponsorships, paid placements, or brand-provided materials, that relationship should be disclosed where relevant. Brand input may be considered for factual corrections but does not control scores. Affiliate compensation does not determine product scores or rankings.
Product images
Some reviews use generic SuppCheckr placeholders instead of brand product photos. Reviews are based on label facts and cited sources, not the presence of a product image. See editorial policy for why placeholders are used.
Updates and corrections: see corrections policy and editorial policy.