Checked against public sources on July 21, 2026 · LookCloser does not sell or recommend supplements.
Worth a closer look
Each of these is ordinary on its own, and none of them says the product is unsafe or that anyone acted dishonestly — we cannot know that. Together they are the kind of pattern a careful shopper would want to see in one place. Every point above is a public, checkable fact; the sources are below.
Does the marketing hold up?
The label says 5.1 g of ashwagandha in 4 gummies — but not what those 4 gummies weigh. That weight is the one number that would let anyone check the amount on the front. We did not weigh it ourselves, so this is an open question, not a problem we found.
“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.
| Calories | 10 |
|---|---|
| Total Carbohydrate | 3 g |
| Total Sugars | 0 g |
| Vitamin D3 (as Cholecalciferol) | 25 mcg |
| Magnesium (as Magnesium Citrate) | 50 mg |
| Zinc (as Zinc Citrate) | 5 mg |
| Ashwagandha Root Extract (10:1) (Withania somnifera) (Root) | 2000 mg |
| GABA (Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid) | 100 mg |
| L-Theanine (as Synthetic L-Theanine) | 50 mg |
Printed on the package: SUGAR FREE · VEGAN · GLUTEN-FREE · NON-GMO · NO ARTIFICIAL COLORS
We read 9 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.
ADVANCED FORMULA
Headlines first. Open evidence only when you want the source trail.
That weight is the one number that would let anyone check the amount on the front. We did not weigh it ourselves, so this is an open question, not a problem we found.
A serving is 4 gummies, and the panel lists 5,100 mg — 5.1 g — of ashwagandha in that serving. What the panel doesn’t give is the one number needed to check it: what a serving weighs. Gummies of this type usually run somewhere around 2.5 to 3.5 grams each, which would put 4…
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingA count that moves steadily is ordinary. A sudden burst is what deserves a closer look.
The dated series runs from 7 written reviews on August 27, 2025 to 246 on August 23, 2026. Up to 160 written reviews were added within a single ~30-day window — 65% of the total. Sudden bursts are the usual fingerprint of incentivized or bought reviews; a steady climb is not.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingThe sales implied by the review count are worth weighing against how new or little-known the brand is. This is a plausibility question, not a fake-review verdict.
681 ratings, at a typical 1–2% review rate, implies roughly 34,050–68,100 units sold since the brand's first claimed use in August 5, 2025. Worth weighing whether that pace is plausible for a new, unknown label. The count is a documented fact; the conclusion is yours.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingEvery 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.
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.
2000 mg per serving — above 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 50 mg of magnesium per serving. Studies we found used 200 mg–420 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.
The panel lists 2 g of ashwagandha per serving. Studies we found used 250 mg–600 mg a day, so this sits above that range.
Study ranges differ between trials and change as research changes. This is background reading, not a pass, a failure, or a recommendation.
The panel lists 5 mg of zinc per serving. Studies we found used 8 mg–40 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.
Only the submitted seller page is identity-certain. Other destinations are shown as leads until a shared UPC/GTIN confirms the exact product.
Lowest New observed via Keepa on 2026-09-01.
View on Amazon ↗No matching product page was confirmed in the current record. Search results cannot be attached as this product until the UPC/GTIN matches.
Search iHerb ↗No matching product page was confirmed in the current record. Search results cannot be attached as this product until the UPC/GTIN matches.
Search Target ↗No matching product page was confirmed in the current record. Search results cannot be attached as this product until the UPC/GTIN matches.
Search Walmart ↗Prices and stock are point-in-time observations. Related pages are never used as product evidence. No affiliate links; LookCloser earns nothing from these sellers.
The summary stops at product-specific facts. The full report preserves every source, calculation, limitation, and unresolved check for review or sharing.
Record built September 03, 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.