Every product on Biorank receives a score from 0 to 100. That number is not a guess, not an opinion, and not influenced by who pays us the most. It is a structured, reproducible assessment built on five dimensions of quality, minus a penalty for hype. Here is exactly how it works.
The five dimensions
Every Biorank score is a weighted composite of five sub-scores. Each dimension is scored independently on a 0-100 scale, then combined using fixed weights that reflect their relative importance to the consumer.
Evidence (30% weight) This is the foundation of everything we do. We evaluate the strength and quality of published clinical research supporting a product's key ingredients. We look at study design (RCTs are weighted highest), sample sizes, whether results have been replicated across independent labs, and critically, whether the doses used in studies match the doses in the actual product.
A product containing an ingredient studied at 5g per day but only providing 500mg does not get credit for that research. This distinction is where most "clinically studied" marketing claims fall apart.
Formulation (20% weight) How well is the product actually built? We assess whether individual ingredient doses meet or exceed clinical thresholds, whether the manufacturer chose bioavailable forms (magnesium citrate vs. magnesium oxide, for example), whether the ingredient combination makes scientific sense, and whether the product avoids unnecessary fillers and artificial additives.
A product with three ingredients at clinical doses will outscore a product with fifteen ingredients at sub-clinical doses -- every time.
Safety (20% weight) We evaluate reported adverse effects in clinical literature, known drug and supplement interactions, stimulant content and cardiovascular considerations, and long-term safety data availability. Products with high stimulant loads, novel or poorly studied compounds, or known interaction risks receive lower safety scores.
Value (15% weight) Cost-effectiveness matters. We compare a product's price per effective serving against category competitors and against the cost of purchasing equivalent ingredients individually. A product that charges three times the category average without delivering three times the quality receives a lower value score. We also assess whether premium pricing reflects genuine quality differences or is primarily a branding exercise.
Transparency (15% weight) How honestly does the brand communicate what is in the product? Full ingredient disclosure (no proprietary blends) is the baseline expectation. Third-party certifications from organizations like NSF, Informed Sport, or IFOS add points. Publicly available Certificates of Analysis, honest marketing that aligns with evidence, and clear allergen and sourcing information all contribute positively.
The Hype Penalty
This is unique to Biorank and arguably the most important part of our methodology. The Hype Penalty is a deduction of 0 to 25 points applied to products where marketing significantly outpaces evidence.
We assess this based on whether marketing claims exceed or misrepresent the clinical evidence, the scale of influencer and celebrity endorsement relative to R&D investment, whether proprietary blends are used to obscure underdosed ingredients, whether pricing premiums are attributable to branding rather than formulation quality, and the ratio of social media hype to published evidence.
A product with a 15-point Hype Penalty is not necessarily bad -- it means there is a meaningful gap between what the brand says and what the science shows. An evidence-first brand with transparent labeling and modest marketing typically receives a Hype Penalty of zero.
Why this approach works
Most supplement review sites fall into one of two traps. Either they rely on subjective opinions and personal experience ("I felt more energy, 8 out of 10"), or they are covertly influenced by affiliate relationships and sponsorships that bias their recommendations.
Biorank avoids both by design. Our methodology is structured and reproducible -- two analysts evaluating the same product using our framework should arrive at the same score. And our revenue model never allows brand payments to influence rankings. Affiliate links are labeled and exist only on products we have already scored independently.
The result is a scoring system where a $15 creatine product can -- and does -- outscore a $99 per month premium blend, because the evidence and formulation quality actually support it.
How we stay current
Science evolves, and so do our scores. We monitor PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and other primary sources for new research that could materially change a product's assessment. When a major new RCT or meta-analysis is published, we re-evaluate affected products and publish updated scores with a clear explanation of what changed and why.
We do not retroactively alter historical scores. If a product scored 82 last quarter and new evidence drops it to 74, both numbers are preserved in the record. Transparency applies to us, too.
The bottom line
Biorank exists because we believe consumers deserve the same rigor in supplement evaluation that exists in other industries. You would not buy a car based solely on the manufacturer's claims -- you would check independent reviews, safety ratings, and performance data. Supplements should be no different.
Every score on our platform is the result of this methodology. No exceptions, no shortcuts, no paid placements.