“Third-party tested”
Evidence →A testing body is named on the listing, but no lot-specific certificate of analysis was located.
Exact product checked · GTIN 810014679433Nutricost · observed 2026-07-23Package says manufactured for: nutricost · 351 E 1750 N, Vineyard, UT 84059
Quick read · Nutricost
Nutricost Multivitamin for Men 120 Capsules
Marketing check: 2 remain partly or independently unverified.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 23, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
120capsules · 60 servings
Marketing claims, checked
Does the marketing hold up?
Couldn’t verify means public proof was not found; it is not a mark against the product. Ingredient research is not treated as a trial of this exact product.
◐Partly confirmed1
?Couldn’t verify independently1
GMP or manufacturing-quality language
Evidence →Facility-level claims can be accurate and still say nothing about this product’s contents. No registration document was located.
Quick read · 3 useful findings
What is worth knowing.
Headlines first. Open evidence only when you want the source trail.
Needs explanationIs the label honest?
Panel carries documented template or translation artifacts
Template, translation, or duplicate-row artifacts are reasons to trust the printed numbers less until the brand supplies a clean, product-specific panel.
Evidence and sources
The panel carries these quoted observations: “Vitamin A (as acetate) has no unit”; “Folate (as folic acid) has no unit”. US-market labels are produced under cGMP controls; these are template or translation artifacts worth checking, not proof that the label is fabricated or that t…
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingChecks outWho is behind it?
The barcode identity checks out · 810014679433.
The outside identifier points to this product, so the other checks are less likely to be about a look-alike.
Evidence and sources
Open Food Facts resolves 810014679433 to "Multivitamin" (Nutricost) — consistent with this listing.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingWhat remains open 1
- No identity-bound public label filing is retained in this record.
These are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
Research behind the findings
Dose and research context
Ingredient context used alongside the captured panel. These sources do not test this product or establish safety or effectiveness.
Where it sells
Price check for this exact product
Amazon
Exact UPC/GTIN match$14.95
$0.25 per labeled serving
matching UPC/GTIN · observed 2026-07-24T04:26:42.580729+00:00
View on Amazon ↗Walmart
Not confirmedNo exact listing retained
Search results remain unbound until this retailer publishes the matching UPC/GTIN.
Search Walmart ↗iHerb
Not confirmedNo exact listing retained
Search results remain unbound until this retailer publishes the matching UPC/GTIN.
Search iHerb ↗Only one exact price was available at build time; prices change by date, seller, and promotion.
Reference prices only · no affiliate links · every compared seller must publish the matching UPC/GTIN.
Want the complete evidence trail?
The summary stops at product-specific facts. The full report preserves every source, calculation, limitation, and unresolved check for review or sharing.
Open the full evidence trailSources, edge cases, and every unresolved check
Confirmed evidence
What checked out02
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Testing claim names a recognized certifier
A named certifier/laboratory appears in the listing (registry cross-check pending).
Barcode confirmed in an outside database
Open Food Facts resolves 810014679433 to "Multivitamin" (Nutricost) — consistent with this listing.
Documented concerns
What needs caution02
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
Panel carries documented template or translation artifacts
The panel carries these quoted observations: “Vitamin A (as acetate) has no unit”; “Folate (as folic acid) has no unit”. US-market labels are produced under cGMP controls; these are template or translation artifacts worth checking, not proof that the label is fabricated or that the product is unsafe.
Unresolved public record
What is still missing05
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
Multi-ingredient formula — panel read, serving weight unknown
We read the full Supplement Facts panel from the listing-image panel (below), but the label doesn’t state a serving weight, so the arithmetic can’t run. A gap in the label’s information, not evidence of a problem.
Research context is available for the listed ingredients
Published sources describe how magnesium, zinc have been studied. This is ingredient context only; the record does not establish that this product delivers the studied dose or outcome. Sources: NIH ODS — Magnesium fact sheet, PubMed search: magnesium glycinate supplementation.
Public label filing not retained
This record does not currently hold an identity-bound public label filing for the exact product. That is a LookCloser coverage gap, not evidence that no filing exists.
This item belongs to a catalog variation family
The paid catalog links this exact item to a parent listing. Review counts on public product pages may be shared across sizes, flavors, or other variants, so the count history is listing context — not evidence that reviewers received or tested this exact variant.
180-day review-count history is on file
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 244 on 2026-01-27 to 279 on 2026-07-11 (net +35). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
What to ask and check
What would settle the open questions
Why is this shown?
Everything we couldn’t verify is something a person can still ask about. Rather than leave gaps sitting as dead ends, we turn each one into a specific question — the exact document, citation, or number that would settle it — plus the things you can confirm yourself with the bottle in your hand.
Ask the brand or seller
1
Can you send the certificate of analysis (COA) for the lot number on my bottle?
A real COA names the testing laboratory, the test date, the lot it covers, and what was measured. “Third-party tested” with no document behind it is a marketing sentence.
2
Is this label filed with NIH’s Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD)?
Filing is voluntary, so absence proves nothing — but a filed label puts the full ingredient table on public record where anyone can read it.
3
What is the amount of each ingredient inside the proprietary blend?
A blend total tells you nothing about whether any single ingredient reaches a dose used in research. Brands may decline — that answer is informative too.
Most brands and sellers publish a contact route. A clear answer adds evidence to the record; no answer leaves the question open.
Check for yourself — no one’s permission needed
1
Compare the panel on the bottle in your hand to the one shown in this record.
Ours was read from listing photos and can contain reading errors. The physical label is the source of truth — if they disagree, tell us and we’ll correct the record.
2
Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 810014679433.
A mismatch between the barcode on the box and the one on the listing is worth pausing over — it can indicate a different variant, a repack, or a counterfeit.
3
Check the lot number and expiry on the bottle against any COA you’re given.
A certificate that doesn’t name your lot doesn’t describe what you’re holding.
These are the open questions on this specific record — not a warning about the product, and not a suggestion to buy or avoid it. Getting them answered is how you decide for yourself.
Record built July 23, 2026. Sources: source listing observed at check time · USPTO Trademark Search · Keepa exact-listing history · NIH / published research · certification and regulator records where available. LookCloser publishes evidence and gaps; it does not advise for or against any supplement. Evidence-based corrections welcome.