Bevisning gates dose: the evidence grade sets the ceiling, and the dose decides how much of that ceiling the product reaches. Value = inverse of price-per-trial-dose-day. Community = mean sentiment of external reviews. Säkerhet caps applied after weighting.
This score is our editorial judgment, not a scientific standard. We combine published evidence, dose, price, transparency, and consumer signals into one composite: this is our method, not a peer-reviewed clinical rating. A higher score means a product does better on the factors we weight, not that it is medically proven to work.
The science behind each active ingredient, independent of which brand sells it.
Dried vegetable, algae and grass concentrates in one serving. Nutritious, but trial evidence for health outcomes is nearly empty.
Proprietary stress-herb mixes. The ingredients often have individual trials; the blend as sold almost never does.
Strain-specific benefits; forget 'total CFU' marketing.
The specific product: dose, price, transparency, and what buyers report.
Säkerhet flags, transparency gaps, dosing concerns, and recurring buyer complaints.
All product data is checked against original sources. Prices, doses, and testing status are updated when product pages change. Bevisning grades are reviewed when new human RCTs are published. Read how we verify.
3.55 out of 5 across 2 verified reviews on 3 platforms.
Medium confidenceConsumer sentiment compiled from 3 public sources (Labdoor, Trustpilot, YouTube).
3.6/5 · mixed sentiment
Compiled from a Labdoor listing located during manual research; not independently re-verified against the live page at build time. Rating converted from 100-point to 5-point scale.
3.5/5 · mixed sentiment
Compiled from a Trustpilot listing located during manual research; not independently re-verified against the live page at build time.
1 threads discussed · negative sentiment
Compiled from a YouTube, Physionic listing located during manual research; not independently re-verified against the live page at build time.
These are consumer sentiment signals. They do not measure whether the product actually works. See our evidence section for that.
Public sources on this same product, unrelated to NO1GEVITY. NIH DSLD is the US government's registered label database (shown verbatim). SuppCo.com is a separate, unaffiliated commercial site with no partnership or data-sharing arrangement with us. NO1GEVITY scores are computed independently of both.
SuppCo is a separate, unaffiliated supplement-tracking site with no partnership, data-sharing agreement, or business relationship with NO1GEVITY. We are not endorsed by them and they do not endorse us. The two facts below are individually verified against the manufacturer or NSF; the outbound link is provided only so readers can independently cross-check on a third-party site if they want to.
We treat external opinion very differently depending on where it comes from. Tier A is our strongest signal. Tier C is background sentiment only. Tier Rejected is what we excluded, listed openly so you can see what we discarded.
These reviews are aggregated from third-party sources, not written by NO1GEVITY. Each entry shows its source, retrieval date, and whether the source has an affiliate or paid relationship. We do not edit reviews to change their meaning. Disclosure policy.
Our strongest external evidence. Long-form independent reviews, physical-product lab work, and third-party certifications.
A methodical teardown concluding AG1 is a reasonably well-formulated multivitamin-plus-greens product but not a whole-food replacement, with real gaps (no Vitamin D, no iron, low fiber) and a meaningful price premium (~$50-70/month above cheaper greens-powder competitors) that isn't clearly justified by ingredient count.
Found detectable but (per FDA interim reference doses) sub-threshold lead contamination; flagged that the level exceeds California's stricter Prop 65 safe-harbor threshold, which led AG1 to add a warning label on California-sold product.
A detailed, credential-backed critique concluding AG1 is overpriced for what it delivers, critiques the La Monica 2024 study's use of maltodextrin as an imperfect placebo, and states plainly: 'I wouldn't spend my money on it. I never have.'
A more measured take than some critics: doesn't call AG1 'wrong' to take, but frames it plainly as a flavored powdered multivitamin, not a substitute for whole vegetables/fiber.
A skeptical academic science-communication critique covering both the Huberman conflict-of-interest and dosing/formulation concerns, plus adverse-event reporting to the FDA.
Quotes British Dietetic Association dietitian Nichola Ludlam-Raine stating greens powders (category-wide, including AG1) do not count toward five-a-day and whole foods remain the first choice.
Best single source detailing founder Chris Ashenden's 2011 New Zealand criminal fraud conviction, his juli 2024 resignation as CEO, and critical quotes from Bryan Johnson and Rhonda Patrick.
Documents Huberman's undisclosed-in-detail financial relationships with AG1 and other brands, and flags AG1's excess vitamin dosing as scientifically unnecessary.
Scientific critique of Huberman's sponsor-driven health advice pattern, using AG1 as a central example of sponsor influence outweighing evidence quality.
Credentialed commentary from clinicians who disclose no paid relationship. Useful as supporting critique but not a substitute for a clinical outcome trial.
A generally positive but not exceptional independent customer-rating aggregate, well below AG1's own self-reported '50,000+ 5-star reviews' claim.
Consistent, recurring community consensus across multiple subreddits: AG1 is repeatedly described as an 'extremely expensive multivitamin,' with specific concern that consumers may reduce actual vegetable intake believing AG1 'covers their bases.'
Additional public mentions we located, kept separate from the deep independent reviews above.
Passed heavy-metal testing but docked for proprietary-blend opacity.
3.5/5. Users split, positive on convenience, negative on price and subscription friction.
Reviewer criticised AG1's blend without listed amounts labelling and marketing claims.
Longevity brands rarely test their exact finished product. We separate what's tested from what's inferred.
The studies that established the trial dose and evidence grade for each active ingredient in this product. Click through to read the original paper.
Not medical advice. We list the strongest claims made by the brand and check each against traceable evidence.
Rules change often. We record when we last verified each row. See the full regulatory timeline →
We list this openly. If a claim isn't backed by a source we can trace, we'd rather flag it than repeat it.
Blends without listed amounts hide individual dosages. Popular but scores low on transparency.
This AG1 (Athletic Greens) AG1 Foundational Nutrition scores 5.9, making it below the site average. It delivers 420mg of Vitamin C (84% of the 500mg trial dose) with grade A evidence (strong human trial data).
If you are the manufacturer or brand owner of AG1 Foundational Nutrition and believe any data on this page is incorrect (wrong dose, wrong ingredient, wrong price, missing certification, outdated status), you can request a correction.
We review every request, verify it against primär sources, and publish any change with a dated note in the version history above. Corrections from brand owners are treated the same as corrections from anyone else: verified before they move.
Request a correction →The next highest-scoring produkter in All-in-one, same scoring method, same rules.