Home/About/Scoring rubric

The exact rubric. Five questions, weighted.

Every product score on Naked Compound is the weighted sum of these five sub-scores. The weights are frozen — they don't change for individual products, categories, or brands.

Rubric v3.0 · weights frozen since Jan 2024 Reviewed annually by the advisory board
30%

Clinical dose — is what's in the jar what trials actually used?

The most important question. Most disappointing supplements aren't fake — they just contain a fraction of the studied dose, hidden behind a "proprietary blend" or a 1-scoop hack.

9–10At or above the studied effective dose for every active, with the dose stated explicitly per serving.
5–8Within 60–99% of the studied dose, or partial disclosure (e.g. blend total but not per-component).
0–4Below 60% of the studied dose, or undisclosed amounts inside a proprietary blend.
20%

Ingredient form — is this the form that actually works?

Magnesium oxide is not magnesium glycinate. ALA is not EPA+DHA. Cyanocobalamin is not methylcobalamin. The form on the label changes the answer to whether anything will happen.

9–10Highest-evidence form available for the use case (e.g. KSM-66 for stress, glycinate for sleep).
5–8An acceptable form, but not the best-evidenced one for the marketed use.
0–4Form is poorly absorbed, mismatched to the claimed effect, or unspecified.
20%

Purity & manufacturing — is what's not on the label also fine?

Heavy metals in herbal extracts, peroxide and anisidine in fish oils, banned-substance contamination in pre-workouts. Things buyers cannot inspect themselves.

9–10Independent third-party lab pass for the relevant contaminants, batch-level COA available.
5–8Brand-published COA, no independent verification or older batch.
0–4No purity documentation, or contamination detected in our own lab work.
15%

Value — rupees per effective dose, against the category.

Computed against the median of the same category at the same dose tier. Premium pricing is fine when it tracks meaningful quality differences; less fine when it pays for celebrity packaging.

9–10Below median ₹/effective-dose for its tier, or premium pricing justified by superior form/purity.
5–8Around category median.
0–4Significantly above median without a justifying quality difference.
15%

Label honesty — does the front match the back?

"Triple strength" with no triple of anything specific. "Clinically dosed" with proprietary blends. Health claims that the supplement-facts panel doesn't support.

9–10Front-of-label claims fully traceable to the panel and to credible evidence; no weasel claims.
5–8Mostly honest, with some marketing puffery that doesn't actively mislead.
0–4Material claim on the front of the label cannot be supported by the back of the label.
A worked example

What a real score looks like.

A representative review with all five sub-scores visible. The total is the weighted sum, rounded to one decimal — no fudge factor, no editorial override.

GNC India · Pro Performance Creatine

Sub-scores → 8.7 weighted total

Clinical dose
9.0 · 30%
Ingredient form
9.5 · 20%
Purity & manufacturing
9.0 · 20%
Value
7.5 · 15%
Label honesty
8.0 · 15%
(9.0 × 0.30) + (9.5 × 0.20) + (9.0 × 0.20) + (7.5 × 0.15) + (8.0 × 0.15) = 8.65 → 8.7
See the full review