SuppCo Testing Finds Widespread Failures in NAD+ Products

SuppCo, the maker of a digital health platform designed to help consumers evaluate supplements with independent product evaluations, recently tested popular NAD+ products and found widespread quality issues.

Specifically, half of the 10 most popular NAD+ supplements among SuppCo users contained little to no NAD+, according to independent, third-party testing from ISO 17025-accredited labs.

These findings come shortly after the company tested 11 of the most popular creatine gummy products among SuppCo users in June.

Of the remaining NAD+ products, four contained more than 95% of the amount of NAD+ claimed on label, while one other product failed its first test at 92.40% of claimed NAD+ content, before passing at 129.92% of claimed NAD+ on a second test. All products were purchased on Amazon anonymously and directly from a brand’s seller account, with no notification to those brands that their products were being tested.

NAD+ has poor bioavailability, and most research on the compound involves niche delivery methods like intravenous and intranasal, SuppCo noted. There is only a small amount of evidence that oral supplementation of intact NAD+  can increase cellular levels. Therefore, the company focused solely on validating the contents of NAD+ products, as trendy and commonly-misunderstood ingredients tend to draw in bad actors.

While NAD+ isn’t particularly difficult to test for via high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and other modern assays, it is chemically fragile and sensitive to heat, moisture, and oxidation, Jordan Glenn, PhD, head of science at Suppco, said. Complex formulas, such as liposomes or encapsulation, can interfere with certain testing methods if not accounted for – it may also make it harder for manufacturers to get the correct dosage consistently during production. “These factors do not excuse mislabeling, but do underscore the importance of third-party batch testing, especially post-manufacture,” Glenn said.

If a product failed a test, it underwent another round of testing for confirmation. Passing and failure was determined by whether a product met 95% of the labeled NAD+ content, and heavy metals were also evaluated using Prop 65 levels.

Red Flags for NAD+ Quality

There were several patterns worth noting across both passing and failing products, Glenn told NW. For instance, high label dosages should raise red flags.

“When we compared the products that passed and failed our testing, products that passed had an average label dose of 312.5 mg, and none exceeded 500 mg, whereas products that failed had listed dosages averaging over 1,000 mg per serving, suggesting that higher label dosages may at times be a cover or just marketing for inflated label claims,” said Glenn. “If a consumer thinks they are getting more NAD+ for the same or a lower price point, it looks like a great deal.”

“Another big commonality among products that passed, versus failed, was their TrustScores (SuppCo’s proprietary supplement rating system). Products that passed had an average TrustScore of 7.25 on SuppCo, while those that failed had an average trust score of 4.69,” said Glenn.

TrustScore ratings are on a 10-point scale, and are based on publicly known manufacturing standards, brand and product certifications, product quality indicators outside of third-party certification, testing benchmarks, and a company’s technical innovations. To date, products with a TrustScore of 8 or higher have consistently passed SuppCo’s testing, the company noted.

Five of the products tested were marketed as “liposomal,” but only one of these products, by Rho Nutrition, actually passed testing. Maripolio, APU.Fairy, and Wellness LabsRx listed “liposomal” on their products, but failed testing.

Confusing Labels

Ambiguity on product labels can lead to consumer confusion and difficulties in testing, Glenn noted.

“Many consumers don’t fully understand what a product should contain or how it should be delivered, opening the door for misleading claims. There is also an issue with overly complex/ambiguous labeling. The use of liposomal formulations, proprietary blends, and ambiguous “≥X% active” language gives manufacturers leeway to technically comply with labeling rules while delivering far less than expected.”

Cata-Kor’s “liposomal” NAD+, which is one of the most popular NAD+ supplements among SuppCo users, received a “caution” after failing one test and passing the second, for instance. This product was particularly difficult to test because, rather than containing 500 mg of NAD+, it contains a blend of “LipoNAD Liposomal β-NAD+ ≥ 50%.”

Consumers may be misled into thinking that this product contains 500 mg of NAD+ per serving, when it actually is only guaranteed on the label to contain 250 mg, SuppCo reported.

“When combined, these factors can create financial incentives to cut corners or misrepresent what’s inside the bottle,” said Glenn. “Compounding the issue, since consumers can’t ‘feel’ an immediate effect from oral use of these ingredients, it’s harder for them to know if a product is doing anything at all.”

All products tested passed heavy metal testing, with levels of lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic at levels below Prop 65 thresholds.

“Our mission is to expand this work across every major supplement category, from popular compounds like creatine, protein, and magnesium to niche nootropics, adaptogens, hormone regulators, detox blends, and sleep aids,” said Glenn. “We will certainly come back to test NR and NMN products in the near future. Wherever there’s hype, confusion, or inconsistency, we’ll be there to test the claims and surface the truth.”

Is Amazon’s Dietary Supplement Policy Making a Difference?

Glenn said that while updates to Amazon’s updated supplement selling policy, which requires annual third-party testing from partner labs NSF, UL, and Eurofins, are well-intended, it won’t be enough to stop bad actors.  

“There is a glaring hole in the approach. Brands can choose their own specific sample of a product to test, and ship it to the third-party testing lab,” Glenn said. “Effectively, what is being tested is still in a brand’s control, rather than randomized,” providing little assurance for products with different lot numbers or production runs. “We would love to see Amazon adjust their policy to conduct randomized testing of supplements, with samples pulled directly from Amazon inventory on the brand’s behalf. We believe randomized testing is the only way to prevent the type of failures shown in our creatine testing.”

“The issue isn’t a lack of rules, but that no one is consistently auditing what is on the shelves. That’s exactly the gap that SuppCo is trying to fill,” Glenn added.

What’s Next?

Glenn said that the next studies in SuppCo’s testing series will be based on consumer demand, market size, and community feedback. “We want to assess the brands and nutrients that people are using regularly or relying on for health goals. Through our app and request form, we’re actively listening to where people want more transparency. We’re also evaluating certain supplements where the ingredients may be expensive, trending, or hard to verify, as those categories are more likely to contain problematic products.”