How We Score Brands: The Clean Label HQ Methodology

Why We Built a Scoring Methodology in the First Place

Anyone can call a supplement "clean." The word itself carries no legal weight, and the FDA doesn't define or regulate it (FDA). That's the exact problem Clean Label HQ exists to solve. Instead of taking a brand's marketing claims at face value, we evaluate each one against a consistent, repeatable set of criteria and explain exactly how we arrived at our assessment.

This article lays out that methodology in full. We use five weighted categories to evaluate every brand we review: third-party testing and certifications, ingredient transparency, sourcing quality, absence of unnecessary fillers and artificial additives, and clinical backing of doses. Below is how each one works and why it's part of the model.

Category 1: Third-Party Testing and Certifications

What We Look For

We check whether a brand carries a legitimate, verifiable third-party certification, such as NSF Certified for Sport, USP Verified, or Informed Sport, and whether that certification is confirmed on the certifying organization's own database, not just claimed on packaging.

Why It's Weighted This Heavily

The FDA does not test or approve dietary supplements for safety or effectiveness before they reach the market (FDA). That single regulatory fact is the foundation of our entire methodology. Independent, accredited testing is the closest thing to a real safety check that exists in this industry, and studies have repeatedly found measurable contamination, including heavy metals, in tested supplement products (PMC). A brand that voluntarily submits to this scrutiny is taking on real cost and real risk of failing a public test. We reward that.

How We Score It

Full credit goes to brands with recognized, verifiable certifications covering both contaminant testing and, where relevant to the category, banned-substance screening. Partial credit goes to brands that publish batch-level Certificates of Analysis without a formal third-party certification mark. Brands making unverifiable "third-party tested" claims with no named lab or certifier receive minimal credit for this category.

Category 2: Ingredient Transparency and Absence of Proprietary Blends

What We Look For

We check whether every active ingredient is listed with its exact dose, or whether doses are hidden behind a proprietary blend that only discloses a combined total weight.

Why It's Weighted This Heavily

FDA rules require ingredients to be listed in descending order by weight, but that rule doesn't require individual dose disclosure within a named blend (FDA). That's a real regulatory gap, and it's exploitable. A proprietary blend makes it impossible to verify whether any single ingredient is present at a meaningful amount, and can make an underdosed formula look more substantial than it is. Full transparency is a deliberate choice a brand makes to be evaluated honestly, and we score it accordingly.

How We Score It

Brands that disclose every ingredient's exact dose receive full credit. Any use of a proprietary blend for active ingredients results in a significant deduction, scaled to how much of the formula's total weight sits inside undisclosed blends.

Category 3: Sourcing Quality

What We Look For

We look at where raw materials come from: whether a brand names its ingredient suppliers, specifies growing or raising conditions (like grass-fed, pasture-raised, or wildcrafted), and discloses country or region of origin where it affects purity or potency.

Why It's Weighted This Heavily

Sourcing affects contamination risk and ingredient integrity well before a product ever reaches a testing lab. Research has found that supplement contamination levels vary meaningfully by country and material source, with certain herbal and plant-derived categories showing elevated heavy metal risk depending on growing conditions (PMC). A brand that can name its suppliers and sourcing standards is demonstrating a level of supply chain control that a vague, undisclosed sourcing model cannot.

How We Score It

Full credit goes to brands that name specific suppliers, growing/raising standards, or geographic origin, especially when paired with lot-level testing tracing back to that source. Generic or undisclosed sourcing receives reduced credit, even if the finished product still tests clean.

Category 4: Absence of Unnecessary Fillers and Artificial Additives

What We Look For

We review the full "Other Ingredients" list for artificial colors, unnecessary synthetic sweeteners, and fillers included for cosmetic rather than functional manufacturing reasons.

Why It's Weighted This Heavily

Not all additives are equal, and our scoring reflects that nuance rather than penalizing every non-active ingredient equally. Functional excipients that enable consistent manufacturing are treated differently from purely cosmetic additives like synthetic dyes, which the FDA itself is currently phasing out of the food supply due to evolving safety and regulatory considerations (FDA). A product loaded with artificial colors or unnecessary fillers signals a formulation prioritizing cost or shelf appeal over ingredient minimalism.

How We Score It

We distinguish between necessary manufacturing aids (like a capsule shell material) and purely cosmetic additives (like synthetic dyes or unnecessary added sweeteners). Products with minimal, functionally justified additives score highest. Artificial colors and flavor-masking sweeteners in products where a natural alternative is standard in the category result in deductions.

Category 5: Clinical Backing of Doses

What We Look For

We check whether a product's labeled dose actually matches, or comes close to, the dose used in the clinical research the brand cites, or in published research on that ingredient generally.

Why It's Weighted This Heavily

Presence of an ingredient on a label means nothing if the dose is too low to reflect the research behind it. A common practice in the industry, sometimes called "fairy dusting," involves including a headline ingredient at a fraction of its studied dose purely for label appeal. Because the FDA does not require dietary supplement claims to be backed by randomized controlled trials before marketing (Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, PMC), this is a gap brands can exploit unless someone checks the actual numbers.

How We Score It

We compare labeled doses against the amounts used in relevant published research, when available. Full credit goes to brands whose doses match or exceed studied amounts for their key active ingredients. Reduced credit applies when doses fall meaningfully short of research-backed amounts, or when no dosing research exists for an ingredient at all.

How the Categories Combine

Each of the five categories contributes to a brand's overall score, weighted toward the two factors most directly tied to consumer risk and verifiability: third-party testing and ingredient transparency. Sourcing, additive minimalism, and clinical dosing add further resolution to that core assessment. No single category can produce a top score in isolation; a brand needs to perform well across the model, not just excel at one dimension while neglecting others.

What This Methodology Deliberately Does Not Claim

We do not claim to test products ourselves, we rely on published third-party certifications, Certificates of Analysis, and label review. We do not make medical claims about whether any ingredient treats or prevents a condition; our review focuses on transparency, sourcing, and testing practices, not clinical efficacy claims. And we do not treat any single certification or practice as disqualifying or automatically superior on its own, since brands can combine strengths and weaknesses differently across categories.

Examples of How This Plays Out Across Categories We Cover

Brands that score well across multiple categories at once tend to share a pattern: verifiable testing, full dose disclosure, and named sourcing, together rather than in isolation. Momentous combines NSF Certified for Sport testing on every batch with named, clinically studied ingredient forms and no proprietary blends. Thorne pairs NSF-certified manufacturing with a clinician-trusted formulation history. Seed backs its 24-strain synbiotic with published clinical trials on the actual finished formula, not just individual strain research, and uses DNA-verified strains rather than vague labeling. Wile fully discloses clinically-backed herbal doses rather than folding them into blends. Each of these brands demonstrates that strength in one category (like certification) is reinforced, not replaced, by strength in the others.

FAQ

Does Clean Label HQ test products itself? No. Our methodology relies on reviewing published third-party certifications, Certificates of Analysis, and label disclosures rather than conducting independent lab testing ourselves.

Can a brand score well without any third-party certification? It's possible but difficult, since certification and testing is one of the two most heavily weighted categories in our model. A brand without certification would need exceptional transparency, sourcing, and dosing disclosure elsewhere to offset that gap.

Why does a proprietary blend hurt a brand's score so much? Because it removes your ability to verify individual ingredient doses, which undermines both our transparency category and our ability to assess clinical dosing accuracy for that product.

Are all fillers scored negatively? No. We distinguish between functional manufacturing aids and purely cosmetic additives like artificial dyes. Only the latter category consistently reduces a score.

How often is this methodology updated? Our criteria are reviewed as certification programs, FDA regulations, and published research evolve, so that our scoring reflects current regulatory and scientific understanding rather than static assumptions.

Understanding how we evaluate brands is one part of making informed choices about your supplement routine. For tracking what you actually take and checking for potential interactions across supplements and peptides, the Cade app offers a simple way to stay on top of your full stack.