Checked against public sources on August 16, 2026 · LookCloser does not sell or recommend supplements.
Does the marketing hold up?
Every ingredient shows its amount · 3 ingredients listed. Every ingredient shows its real amount — nothing is hidden in a proprietary blend.
“Couldn’t verify” means we looked and found no public proof — not a mark against the product. Most supplement claims cannot be independently verified by anyone, so grey is the normal state of this industry.
| Rhodiola rosea Root Extract (std. 3% Rosavins / 1% Salidroside) | 300 mg |
|---|---|
| Total Rosavins | 9 mg |
| Ashwagandha Root & Leaves Extract (Withania somnifera) | 120 mg |
Printed on the package: NON-GMO · VEGAN · GLUTEN FREE · DAIRY FREE · THIRD-PARTY TESTED · NO ARTIFICIAL COLORS · NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS · NO ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS
We read 3 lines from the package photograph. It is our transcript of the label, not the manufacturer’s panel, and it may be incomplete.
The public sources did not settle the marketing promises on this label.
Published research exists for ingredients in this formula. Whether this product’s doses match those studies could not be confirmed.
Ingredient research can support context, but it is not a trial of this exact product.
No named laboratory or lot-specific certificate was found for this exact product. No exact brand product page was available for a document check. NSF, IFOS, USP, and Informed-Sport were not checked in this record. This is a public-evidence limit, not a finding that testing did not occur.
We looked and found no public proof. That does not count against the product.
Headlines first. Open evidence only when you want the source trail.
Every ingredient shows its real amount — nothing is hidden in a proprietary blend.
The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingThese are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
Filed address
5042 Wilshire Blvd. #26878, Los Angeles, CALIFORNIA 90036, UNITED STATES
USPTO identifies the public owner or applicant behind this brand wordmark. This does not by itself identify the product manufacturer or prove where the product was made. Open USPTO source ↗
The label amount is shown beside the range used in the linked ingredient studies.
120 mg per serving — below the 250–600 mg/day used in the linked studies.
Not a score. Studies disagree with each other and change over time, so this sits beside the evidence rather than counting toward it — it is here so you can read the sources yourself.
The panel lists 120 mg of ashwagandha per serving. Studies we found used 250 mg–600 mg a day, so this sits below that range.
Study ranges differ between trials and change as research changes. This is background reading, not a pass, a failure, or a recommendation.
$0.80 per labeled serving
matching UPC/GTIN · checked Aug 16, 2026
View on Amazon ↗We only show a price when the seller publishes the same barcode as the bottle. We haven’t found that match here.
Search iHerb ↗We only show a price when the seller publishes the same barcode as the bottle. We haven’t found that match here.
Search Target ↗We only show a price when the seller publishes the same barcode as the bottle. We haven’t found that match here.
Search Walmart ↗Only one exact price was available at build time; prices change by date, seller, and promotion.
No official brand storefront is confirmed in this record. That is neutral, but it prevents a direct brand-price, label, review, and document check.
Reference prices only · no affiliate links · every compared seller must publish the matching UPC/GTIN.
The summary stops at product-specific facts. The full report preserves every source, calculation, limitation, and unresolved check for review or sharing.
Record built August 16, 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.