Methodology
How We Review
Every score on this site comes out of the same five checks. They're published here so you can hold us to them — and so you can run them yourself on any product we haven't covered yet.
Why these audits exist
Start with the incentives, because they explain everything downstream. The supplement industry is largely built to profit shareholders: formulas are costed to a margin, funnels are tuned to a conversion rate, and the buyer's outcome is, at best, a secondary metric. Nobody inside that machine is employed to ask whether the dose matches the study or whether the refund terms are fair. So the asking has to happen outside it.
That's this desk's job, and it's personal: the people behind it come out of accounting, biotech, healthcare, and finance — close enough to the industry to read its paperwork fluently — and live with the same problems our readers do. The five checks below are how we turn that position into a method: be fair, be clear, and give buyers and journalists alike the detailed feedback the industry won't give itself. A light in the industry is the goal; a published method is how we stay honest about whether we're being one.
Check 1 — The label audit (dose vs. evidence)
We list every active ingredient and compare its form and amount against the doses used in published research. The benchmarks we score against in the prostate category:
| Ingredient | Evidence summary | Benchmark dose |
|---|---|---|
| Beta-sitosterol | Most consistent trial evidence: improved flow rate, reduced post-void residual vs. placebo | 30–91 mg/day |
| Pygeum africanum | Moderate: 18-study review, symptoms + nocturia improved vs. placebo | Extract-dependent |
| Pumpkin seed extract | Emerging: 12-week trial, ~30% symptom-score reduction incl. nocturia | Extract-dependent |
| Saw palmetto | Weakest high-quality evidence: best trials ≈ placebo | 320 mg/day, standardized 85–95% fatty acids |
A label that hides amounts inside a "proprietary blend" cannot pass this check at full marks — by design, ours or theirs. Exact-milligram labels earn credit; third-party verification (ConsumerLab, USP, or NSF testing) earns more. We cite independent testing findings where they exist, including the uncomfortable ones: an "extra strength" product in this category tested at under half its claimed content, and another met its fatty-acid numbers with olive-oil filler.
Check 2 — The checkout audit
We walk the full purchase flow as a buyer and document: subscription or one-time (and how clearly that's stated), pre-checked add-ons and their prices, bundle structure and free-shipping thresholds, countdown or scarcity devices, and the final-screen terms. Findings appear in each review's "Before you buy" box, in plain language, next to the buy link — not buried in a policy page.
Check 3 — The guarantee audit
We record the guarantee window, then the process: return authorization requirements, who pays return shipping, return destination, empty-bottle policies, and the friction buyers report when claiming. A 180-day window with a hostile process scores below a clean 90. Where a fact can't be confirmed from public terms (per-offer refund data is not published by the networks), we say so on the page rather than guessing.
Check 4 — Demand and vendor stability
We check whether real buyers are actually buying: marketplace demand signals, complaint volume and themes (Trustpilot, BBB, forums), and how long the vendor has operated. A formula nobody buys has no buyer-experience record to learn from; a vendor with a pattern of billing complaints gets that pattern printed in its review.
Check 5 — Reported buyer experience
We synthesize the buyer-experience record — reviews, complaint boards, and long-form user accounts — into timelines and patterns: when effects are reported to start, what side effects recur, what frustrates people. This is always labeled as reported experience. We never present it as our own testing, and we never publish a first-person usage claim we cannot verify.
The score
Scores are out of 10 and weighted: label quality and dose transparency (30%), checkout honesty (25%), guarantee terms and process (20%), buyer experience pattern (15%), vendor stability and demand (10%). Scores measure how safe and sensible a purchase is — never medical effectiveness, which no review site can measure and honest ones don't claim to. A product can score well and still not work for you; that's what the guarantee weighting is for.
What we refuse to do
- No paid placements, paid scores, or vendor review approval. Vendors do not see reviews before publication.
- No fabricated testing, personas, or testimonials — ours or anyone's.
- No disease-cure or prostate-shrinking claims, ours or quoted without challenge.
- No hiding the traps: if a checkout has a pre-checked box, it is named on the page that links to it.
- No steering you away from a doctor. Symptom content carries a see-a-urologist note, and the free fixes are published next to every paid option.
Updates and corrections
Prices, terms, and formulas in this category move constantly. Pages are re-verified on a rolling cycle and after any vendor change we detect; material changes are reflected in the copy, not silently swapped. If you catch an error — a stale price, a changed term, a trap we missed — tell us. Corrections are part of the model.