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.
Exact product checked · GTIN 851658007398POWERVANCE · observed 2026-07-24🇺🇸 USPTO wordmark owner · WELL ALIMENTS LLC · New Jersey, USA
Quick read · POWERVANCE
Powervance AquaLyte
Marketing check: 3 remain partly or independently unverified.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 24, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
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.
?Couldn’t verify independently3
US manufacturing or origin language
Evidence →“Made in USA” can describe only final bottling. Ingredient-sourcing records were not located for this product.
1 more public-evidence limit
“Third-party tested”
Evidence →No named laboratory or lot-specific certificate was found for this exact product. The exact brand page names no testing issuer and links no product-bound report. 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.
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: “Calories has no unit”; “Sugar 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.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingChecks outIs the label honest?
Every declared ingredient has an amount · 6 quantified rows.
You can compare each declared dose with research instead of guessing what is hidden inside a blend.
Evidence and sources
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 findingChecks outWho is behind it?
The barcode identity checks out · 851658007398.
The outside identifier points to this product, so the other checks are less likely to be about a look-alike.
Evidence and sources
The brand's store lists this exact barcode as “AquaLyte - High Sodium Electrolyte Hydration Powder” (variant: 50 Servings / Lemon Lime) — identity confirmed across retailer listings.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingWhat remains open 3
- No identity-bound public label filing is retained in this record.
- Barcode checksum is valid; no independent product record was found.
- No dated review-history series is on file yet.
These are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
Who owns the brand wordmark?
🇺🇸
WELL ALIMENTS LLCLimited Liability Company · exact supplement-class mark for POWERVANCE
Filed address
10,000 Lincoln Drive East, Unit 201, Marlton, New Jersey 08053, 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 ↗
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$34.99
$0.70 per labeled serving
matching UPC/GTIN · observed 2026-07-24T10:30:22.559693+00:00
View on Amazon ↗Brand website
Exact UPC/GTIN match$53.00
$1.06 per labeled serving
matching UPC/GTIN · observed 2026-07-24
View on Brand website ↗iHerb
Not confirmedNo exact listing retained
Search results remain unbound until this retailer publishes the matching UPC/GTIN.
Search iHerb ↗Target
Not confirmedNo exact listing retained
Search results remain unbound until this retailer publishes the matching UPC/GTIN.
Search Target ↗Walmart
Not confirmedNo exact listing retained
Search results remain unbound until this retailer publishes the matching UPC/GTIN.
Search Walmart ↗Same UPC/GTIN observed across 2 sellers. Amazon was lowest at $34.99; Brand website was highest at $53.00 — a $18.01 range at check time.
Reference prices only · no affiliate links · every compared seller must publish the matching UPC/GTIN.
Want to inspect the evidence?
The full report shows every source, the exact unresolved question, and the documentation that would settle it.
Open the full evidence trailSources, edge cases, and every unresolved check
Confirmed evidence
What checked out03
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Found on the brand's own store
The brand's store lists this exact barcode as “AquaLyte - High Sodium Electrolyte Hydration Powder” (variant: 50 Servings / Lemon Lime) — identity confirmed across retailer listings.
Every ingredient amount is disclosed
The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.
Exact trademark owner identified
USPTO lists WELL ALIMENTS LLC (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY) in New Jersey, USA for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itself prove who manufactures or sells this product.
Documented concerns
What needs caution01
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: “Calories has no unit”; “Sugar 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 missing07
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
Review-count history: not available
Marketplace rating not shown★ — rating count unavailable. No exact-listing count history was available, so no review-pattern claim is made.
“Lab tested” claimed, but no lab or report named
The observed listing claims third-party testing without naming a lab or certifier. No product-bound report is retained, so the claim cannot be verified as stated. NSF, IFOS, USP, and Informed-Sport were not checked in this record.
Listed amounts fit the serving
Technical check only: the panel’s 3 actives sum to 700 mg, which fits inside the ≈6,900 mg serving. This means the numbers are physically possible — it does not mean the formula was validated or the contents confirmed.
Photo-read pack math is internally consistent
50 servings × 6.9 g = 345 g, matching the printed net weight 345 g (Net WT. 345g). This checks agreement within the photo read; it is not an independent contents test.
Research context is available for the listed ingredients
Published sources describe how magnesium 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.
UPC valid, no independent record
Check digit passes; no third-party database record found yet. Coverage gaps are common — not a strike.
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
Where are the ingredients sourced, and where is the product manufactured?
“Made in USA” can describe only the final bottling step. Ask which country the actives came from and whether the facility is audited.
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 851658007398.
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 24, 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.