Back to Trust Index

Trust Index Methodology

Every score traces back to this rubric. We publish it in full so every number can be challenged, verified, and reproduced.

Disclosure: Evident Health LLC owns Sleep Karma, a bamboo-silk mouth tape brand. Mouth tape is intentionally excluded from this index to avoid scoring our own category. We disclose this prominently because that’s what trustworthy publishers do.

How it works

🔍
STEP 01
Select
Identify unicorn + indie brands per category using funding/revenue thresholds
📋
STEP 02
Research
Pull regulatory records, lab data, ingredient panels, and marketing claims from primary sources
📊
STEP 03
Score
Apply the 7-dimension rubric with 2–5 evidence items per dimension per brand
🔬
STEP 04
Test
Commission independent lab testing on priority products (5 brands in v1)
⚖️
STEP 05
Review
Legal review of every claim. Right-of-reply notice to every brand. 14-day response window.
📄
STEP 06
Publish
Scores, evidence, and methodology published in full. Updates logged publicly.

The seven scoring dimensions

Each brand is scored 0–100 on seven dimensions. Scores are aggregated into a composite Trust Score using the weights shown. Hover the chart to explore.

7dimensions
1
Ingredient Transparency20%

What we measure: Full per-serving disclosure vs proprietary blends. Named source ingredients. Clinically studied dose ranges. Inactive ingredient listing.

Sources: Brand label, product page, PubMed clinical literature

2
Label Accuracy & Lab Testing20%

What we measure: Independent lab data vs label claims (±15% tolerance). Heavy metals (Pb, As, Cd, Hg) vs Prop 65 thresholds. Undisclosed adulterants. Container chemistry (BPA/BPS).

Sources: ConsumerLab, Consumer Reports, Clean Label Project, Lead Safe Mama, our commissioned lab tests

3
Regulatory Record15%

What we measure: FDA warning letters, FTC enforcement, NAD challenges, Prop 65 settlements, class actions, recalls, BBB complaint volume. Points deducted from a starting score of 100.

Sources: FDA, FTC, NAD, PACER, CA DOJ Prop 65 database, BBB profiles

4
Marketing Claims15%

What we measure: Top 5 health claims tied to peer-reviewed evidence at the delivered dose. Cited studies match the actual ingredient. FTC endorsement disclosure compliance.

Sources: Brand marketing, PubMed, Retraction Watch, ClinicalTrials.gov, FTC 16 CFR 255

5
Additive Disclosure10%

What we measure: Hidden ingredients behind 'natural flavors' (FDA 21 CFR 101.22). Undisclosed sweeteners, preservatives, processing aids. The LMNT maltodextrin loophole.

Sources: Brand labels, independent investigation, class action filings

6
Third-Party Certification10%

What we measure: NSF Certified for Sport (25 pts), Informed Sport/Choice (25 pts), USP Verified (20 pts), NSF Contents (15 pts), ConsumerLab (10 pts), Clean Label Project (10 pts), USDA Organic (5 pts).

Sources: NSF, Informed Sport, USP, CLP, ConsumerLab public databases

7
Sourcing Transparency10%

What we measure: Country of manufacture disclosed. Specific manufacturer named. Country of origin for primary actives. Supplier transparency. GMP/facility audit disclosure.

Sources: Brand FAQ/about pages, FDA establishment registration, trade press

Composite scoring bands

The composite Trust Score places each brand into one of five bands.

80–100Trustworthy

Strong disclosure, clean record, substantiated claims

60–79Acceptable

Mostly trustworthy with specific gaps documented

40–59Concerning Gaps

Multiple meaningful trust deficits

20–39Trust Deficit

Pattern of opaque, unverified, or contested behavior

0–19Severe Failure

Multiple confirmed failures across dimensions

Categories included

Greens Powders
3 unicorns2 indies
Electrolytes
3 unicorns2 indies
Collagen
3 unicorns2 indies
Colostrum
3 unicorns2 indies
Mushroom Coffee
3 unicorns2 indies
Protein Powders
3 unicorns2 indies
Functional Sodas
3 unicorns2 indies
Multivitamin Gummies
3 unicorns2 indies
Excluded: Mouth tape (Sleep Karma conflict)Deferred: Creatine, GLP-1 / peptides

Categories must have ≥$250M US annual revenue, at least one brand with ≥$50M funding or ≥$250M valuation, and independent third-party data sources covering ≥50% of scored brands.

Brand selection criteria

UNICORN

Unicorn tier

Must meet any one threshold:

$$50M+ in disclosed funding
$$100M+ estimated annual revenue
$Acquired by a $1B+ parent
INDIE

Indie comparison

Selected as a control group to test the funding-vs-trust hypothesis:

Below unicorn funding thresholds
Same category, same methodology
Explicitly labeled in the scorecard

Brand right of reply

Any brand scored in the Trust Index has the right to:

Request evidence
Full citations for any score. Response within 14 days.
14 days
Submit corrections
Documentary evidence of factual errors. We update and publish a correction note.
On receipt
Request re-scoring
New third-party testing, resolved litigation, reformulated products. Review within 30 days.
30 days

We do not offer: Pre-publication review of scores, removal in exchange for cooperation or advertising, or score adjustments absent documentary evidence.

Honest caveats

Public information bias. Heavily scrutinized brands accumulate more data, which can skew scores in either direction. We treat absence of disclosure as a low transparency score.
Lab data availability. Categories with extensive third-party testing (protein, electrolytes) produce more data than newer categories (colostrum, functional sodas).
Recency. Scores reflect a snapshot in time. Brands may have improved or degraded since the most recent data point. Annual re-scoring addresses this.
Subjectivity in weights. The 20/20/15/15/10/10/10 weights reflect editorial judgment. Reasonable people could weight differently. The full methodology is published so readers can apply their own.

Full methodology document

The complete methodology (v1.0) — including sub-criteria, point allocations, and sources of truth for each dimension — is available as a PDF appendix in the full Trust Index report.