One product, one panel, one record.
Omni-Biotic Balance — label audit
The page heads its evidence block "Clinical studies from leading research centers, universities, and hospitals using the final formulation of Omni-Biotic Balance." One of the two studies under that heading is an in-vitro screen in which blood cells were cultured in a dish. No human was dosed with anything, and it is not a study of this formulation.
This page is an audit of a label. It records what this product’s panel discloses, what of that could be checked against a primary record, and what could not. The score below ranks this product on that disclosure and on nothing else.
The record this page rests on
- NIH label record
- No NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record is on file for this product in this teardown.
- Label read on
- The most recent dated artefact behind this page. Labels change; this is how old our reading of it is.
- Cohort
- Addendum — outside the founding denominators Audited 2026-07-31, outside the frozen founding cohort of 27 and outside every D27 denominator.
- How deep this went
- Label audit — the lighter pass What the label says, what basis it gives for its CFU number, whether the strains are coded, whether a government label record exists — checked and published. No full claim inventory was written for this SKU. It is a real result, and it is a shallower one than the teardowns above it, which is why the page says so before you weigh it against them.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
47.5 out of 100
Rank 98 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score. This rank is shared with 1 other product — 2 products sit on 47.5 and are tied. They hold the position jointly; no tiebreaker is applied, because every tiebreaker available here would be a number the rubric deliberately refused to weigh, smuggled back in to make a list look tidier.
The score measures one thing: how much of what you are buying this company tells you, and how much of that survives being checked against a source that is not the company. It does not measure whether the product works — this site holds no efficacy data of its own, and 0 of 294 organism slots in the founding cohort carry a strain with a human randomised trial for any male-specific outcome, so nobody in this category has evidence that would support a ranking by effect.
Computed over 66% of the rubric by weight — the share of the five questions below this record could answer. The remaining 2 questions are unanswered, and unanswered is not nought: they leave the divisor rather than dragging the score down. That share travels with the number and is never dropped — this score over 66% of the weight and the same score over all of it are different claims.
| Component | Weight | What was counted, and where | Fraction | Weight × fraction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain identity printed on the panel | 0.24 | 6 of 6 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 6 / 6 = 1.0000 | 0.2400 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 6 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 6 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| What the CFU count is measured against | 0.22 | Potency basis "none-stated": CFU figure printed yes, single basis stated no, basis reaches expiry no — 1 of 3. | 1 / 3 = 0.3333 | 0.073333 |
| Printed designators that lead to a human trial | 0.20 | Only 1 of 6 designators on this panel have been searched — below the 50% coverage a published share requires. A ratio over 1 slots would describe our sampling, not the label. | Not answered | — excluded from the divisor, not counted as nought |
| Certification confirmed at the issuer’s own register | 0.14 | Every certification on this record is brand-asserted with the register unreachable, or not yet queried. An unreachable register is a fact about the verification infrastructure, not about this brand, so it may not move its position. | Not answered | — excluded from the divisor, not counted as nought |
0.313333 — the last column added up — divided by 0.66, the weight this record could answer, is 0.4747. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 47.5 above.
See this product’s row in the full ranking, alongside the other 153 scored products, or read what each of the five components asks and how to check it .
What this label discloses
Everything in this table is what the product itself states — on the printed panel, on the brand’s own page, or in the label record the manufacturer filed. Nothing in it is checked yet; checking is the next section.
| Disclosure | As recorded |
|---|---|
| CFU as printed | 2 Billion CFU (Probiotic blend, 48 mg) |
| What that count is measured against | No basis stated |
| Strain designators | All organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 6 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
Nothing to quote — "2 Billion CFU" is printed with no temporal qualifier. Worth recording alongside it: 2 billion CFU per day is the lowest total cell count of the four Omni-Biotic SKUs on this site — against 5, 7.5 and 10 billion — and it is low for a practitioner-priced product at $2.25 a day. It is not the lowest count in the audit as a whole: several gummies and single-strain tablets here declare 100 to 500 million.
The panel’s own words on potency, verbatim.
A CFU number appears with no temporal basis of any kind. A count with no basis is not a quantity; there is no date at which it is claimed to be true.
Every organism on the panel carries a printed strain designator. Whether those designators lead anywhere is a separate question, answered below.
| Organism as printed | Designator as printed | Quantity as printed | What the designator resolves to | The query we ran |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bifidobacterium animalis | W53 | — not stated separately | Not yet checked | — |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | W55 | — not stated separately | Not yet checked | — |
| Lactobacillus salivarius | W57 | — not stated separately | Not yet checked | — |
| Enterococcus faecium | W54 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PMID 27886064 retrieved and read; EFSA Journal 2020;18(7):6174 retrieved in full via PMC7331632 |
| Lactococcus lactis | W58 | — not stated separately | Not yet checked | — |
| Lactobacillus casei | W56 | — not stated separately | Not yet checked | — |
What of that is verifiable
A disclosure is verifiable when a reader can open a record that neither we nor the brand controls and see the same thing. Below is every dated artefact this page rests on. What is absent from this list is not verified, however reasonable it sounds.
- Photograph of the printed panel — omnibiotic-balance-side-panelhttps://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0567/5057/1655/files/balance-side.jpg — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured The brand's own label photograph, transcribed by reading the image; panel text is not present as HTML text on the product page. "Serving Size: 1 sachet (2 g) · 28 servings · Calories 10 · Sodium 10 mg (<1%) · Total carbohydrates 1 g (<1%); Probiotic blend 48 mg (2 Billion CFU) †" with six nested organisms — Bifidobacterium animalis W53, Lactobacillus acidophilus W55, Lactobacillus salivarius W57, Enterococcus faecium W54, Lactococcus lactis W58, Lactobacillus casei W56. Other ingredients: non-GMO corn starch, maltodextrin, FOS, inulin, polydextrose, potassium chloride, plant protein (rice), magnesium sulfate, amylase, manganese sulfate.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — omnibioticlife-balance-2026-07-31https://omnibioticlife.com/products/omnibiotic-balance — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured Fetched directly, HTTP 200, no bot-blocking. SKU OBBA; manufactured in the Netherlands for AllergoSan USA; European name per the brand's own FAQ, "Omni-Biotic 6". Source of the $63.00 price, the two "Clinical Studies" cards quoted in the findings, the Benefits list with no numbered references, the Candida and reproductive-tract claims, the "83% versus 7%" and "#1 in Europe" copy, and the rendered "Liquid error (snippets/price line 95): divided by 0" where the unit price belongs.
How many of its strains have a human trial for what it is sold for
Across the frozen founding cohort, 0 of 294 organism slots (0.0%) carry an organism with a human randomised controlled trial for any male-specific outcome. Not for this product — for all 27 of the founding teardowns, taken together. That is the number to hold against any men’s probiotic, including this one.
Two further founding-cohort figures for context: only 43 of 294 organism slots carry a strain with any human RCT at all under the exact code printed on the label, and only 2 of 27 products have a published human trial of the finished formula — the thing actually in the bottle. All three figures divide by the frozen cohort of 27 teardowns and 294 organism slots, never by every teardown on this site.
A word on what a designator has to clear before it counts here. The organism must be named with the exact strain code that appears in the trial, the trial must be in humans, and the code must return that trial when a reader searches it. A species name does not qualify: the trials in this field are of strains, and a species contains thousands of them.
What it costs per day
$2.25 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $63.00 USD
- What that buys
- 28 sachets, net weight 2.12 oz / 60 g, 1 sachet (2 g) daily, 28 servings ($63.00 ÷ 28 = $2.25). Cost per billion CFU per day, $1.13 — the worst in its batch by roughly a factor of four, and about 27 times the cost per organism of the cheapest product audited alongside it.
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://omnibioticlife.com/products/omnibiotic-balance — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
What certification it holds, checked at the issuer’s own register
A badge on a bottle is a claim like any other. Every row below was checked — or not checked — at the certifier’s own public register, never at the badge. Across the frozen founding cohort, 2 of 27 products hold a certification we could confirm at the issuer — a founding-cohort figure, not a count over every teardown on this site.
| Programme | Status at the issuer | Checked |
|---|---|---|
| Any third-party certification | Not checked | 31 July 2026 |
Any third-party certification
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
None claimed, none found, so there was no issuer register to query. As on the brand's other SKUs, the FAQ offers "We prioritize quality and adhere to strict cGMP and European Union standards with frequent allergen testing" with no laboratory and no certifying body named, and the only mark on the box is the brand's own "HYPOALLERGENIC · NON-GMO · VEGAN" roundel, which is a self-asserted formulation claim.
How it differs from the same brand’s women’s version
Across the fourteen same-brand men’s-versus-women’s label diffs run inside the frozen founding cohort, zero men’s or default formulas contain a probiotic strain, identified by designator, that was selected on male-specific evidence. In eight of the fourteen the sex-specific differentiator is a botanical or a mineral, and in five of the fourteen the women’s SKU is better-specified, cheaper, or both — “better-specified” meaning the panel that discloses more, never the panel with more in it. The rule behind each of those counts, and all fourteen pairs classified against it , are published in full. Diffs run on teardowns added since sit outside this fourteen, and outside the sentence above.
This brand sells no women’s counterpart to this product, so there is no diff to run.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 an-in-vitro-cell-culture-screen-presented-as-a-clinical-study
Under the heading "Clinical studies from leading research centers, universities, and hospitals using the final formulation of Omni-Biotic Balance", the second card is "Identification of strong interleukin-10 inducing lactic acid bacteria which down-regulate T helper type 2 cytokines — Published: 2005". That is PMID 16297146 (Niers LEM et al., Clin Exp Allergy 2005): peripheral blood mononuclear cells co-cultured with 13 probiotic strains in a dish. No human was dosed with anything. It is not a clinical study and it is not a study of this formulation.
The record: PMID 16297146, abstract retrieved and read 2026-07-31, against the product page's own "Clinical Studies" heading and card, verbatim — open ithttps://omnibioticlife.com/products/omnibiotic-balance — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 2 a-1999-citation-with-no-author-journal-or-identifier
The first "Clinical Study" card is "Influence of secretory Immunoglobuline A (sIgA) deficites for sport students through dietary supplements — Published: 1999", with no journal, no authors, no DOI and no PMID. Twenty-seven years old and not locatable from what the brand provides.
The record: Product page study card, verbatim, 2026-07-31
Finding 3 no-human-clinical-trial-of-this-formulation-was-located
The Benefits list carries no numbered references at all, unlike the brand's Stress Release and Power pages. With the two study cards accounted for — one unlocatable, one in-vitro — nothing remains. Because the strains are named, this is a real absence rather than an unanswerable question.
The record: Full product page read 2026-07-31; PMID 16297146 retrieved and read; the 1999 item not locatable
Finding 4 two-billion-cfu-at-two-dollars-twenty-five-a-day
$1.13 per billion CFU per day — roughly four times the next worst in its batch and about 27 times the cheapest. The total cell count, 2 billion per day, is the lowest of any practitioner-channel product audited in this project so far. Cell count is not a quality metric on its own, and a spread this wide between products making overlapping digestive claims is something a buyer can act on.
The record: Panel figure of 2 Billion CFU per 2 g sachet against the $63.00 / 28-sachet price, both 2026-07-31
Finding 5 the-cfu-basis-is-unstated
"2 Billion CFU" with no temporal qualifier of any kind on the panel.
The record: Supplement Facts transcribed from the brand's own label image, cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0567/5057/1655/files/balance-side.jpg, 2026-07-31
Finding 6 a-candida-claim-with-zero-citations
"Supports healthy balance of yeast and beneficial bacteria in the gut, maintaining healthy levels of Candida" appears on the page with nothing behind it. A separate claim, "…as well as reproductive tract health", appears in the brand's own product summary and meta description, does not appear in the on-page Benefits list, and is likewise unsupported.
The record: Product page Benefits list and page metadata, both read 2026-07-31
Finding 7 enterococcus-faecium-is-excluded-from-efsas-qualified-presumption-of-safety
E. faecium W54 is the fourth organism on this panel. EFSA's Panel on Biological Hazards excludes the species from QPS, verbatim: "Filamentous fungi, bacteriophages, Streptomycetes, Oomycetes, Enterococcus faecium and Escherichia coli are excluded from the QPS assessments based on an ambiguous taxonomic position or the possession of potentially harmful traits." Reported at exactly that strength.
The record: EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards, EFSA Journal 2020;18(7):6174, retrieved in full via PMC7331632, 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 8 the-same-uncited-comparative-claims-as-the-rest-of-the-brand-line
"Omni-Biotic ensures that 83% of good bacteria reach the gut alive and active, compared to an average of 7% in other top US probiotics" and "#1 Probiotic Brand in Europe. #2 Probiotic Worldwide." appear here as they do on the brand's other SKU pages, with no citation, no method, no test protocol, no named comparator and no measurement period.
The record: Product page copy, verbatim, 2026-07-31; the same sentences appear on the Stress Release and Power pages
Finding 9 a-visible-template-error-where-the-unit-price-belongs
"Liquid error (snippets/price line 95): divided by 0" renders in place of the per-serving price. On the product with the worst cost per organism in its batch, the buyer is shown no unit price at all.
The record: Product page rendered output, 2026-07-31; the same string renders on the Stress Release and Power pages
What we could not verify
Every gap below is published rather than deleted. Most are derived automatically from the empty fields in this page’s own record, so a gap cannot be hidden by leaving a box blank.
- 5 strain designators not looked up
- These designators are printed on the panel and have not been searched. They are unchecked, not empty.
- Any third-party certification status
- None claimed, none found, so there was no issuer register to query. As on the brand's other SKUs, the FAQ offers "We prioritize quality and adhere to strict cGMP and European Union standards with frequent allergen testing" with no laboratory and no certifying body named, and the only mark on the box is the brand's own "HYPOALLERGENIC · NON-GMO · VEGAN" roundel, which is a self-asserted formulation claim.
- The per-strain CFU of any of the six organisms
- One aggregate figure — 48 mg, 2 billion CFU — covers all six, with no allocation disclosed anywhere.
- What the 2 billion CFU is measured against
- No temporal qualifier appears on the panel. The basis is simply not stated.
- How many of the six strains have human trial evidence under the exact code on this label
- Not counted in this pass, so no per-product denominator is printed. This was a label-facts audit: the W-codes were confirmed as printed rather than individually queried. The one exception is E. faecium W54, which is named by designator in a published human randomised trial, PMID 27886064.
- The identity of the page's first cited "Clinical Study"
- The card reads "Influence of secretory Immunoglobuline A (sIgA) deficites for sport students through dietary supplements — Published: 1999" and gives no journal, no authors, no DOI and no PMID. It is 27 years old and is not locatable from the information the brand provides. Nothing is attributed to it.
- Any human clinical trial of this formulation
- None was located. The strains are named, so this is a real absence rather than an unanswerable question: the page carries no numbered references at all on its Benefits list, and its two "Clinical Studies" cards are the unlocatable 1999 item and an in-vitro cell-culture screen.
- Any support for the Candida claim or the reproductive-tract claim
- "Supports healthy balance of yeast and beneficial bacteria in the gut, maintaining healthy levels of Candida" carries zero citations anywhere on the page. "…as well as reproductive tract health" appears in the brand's own product summary and meta description, is absent from the on-page Benefits list, and is supported by nothing.
- Any government label record for this product, or for this brand
- None exists, and the absence is brand-wide. Six spellings were queried against NIH's label database: Omni-Biotic → 0, Omni Biotic → 0 brand matches, OmniBiotic → 0, AllergoSan → 0, Caricol → 0, Omni-Logic → 0.
How to check every line of this page yourself
Nothing on this page requires trusting us. Every claim above resolves to a record you can open:
- Open the NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record linked at the top of this page. It is the label the manufacturer filed, not our transcription of it.
- Compare the CFU line and the suggested-use line against the disclosure table above. If they disagree with us, we are wrong and we want to know.
- Take any strain designator from the panel and run the query printed beside it. The query is published precisely so you can get a different answer than we did.
- Divide the price by the number of days the label’s own dose instructions make the container last. That arithmetic is the whole of the cost-per-day row.
- Search the certifier’s own register for this product, not for the brand. A company can participate in a programme without this product being on its list.
Read the heading, then read the study underneath it.
The heading: “Clinical studies from leading research centers, universities, and hospitals using the final formulation of Omni-Biotic Balance.” The second study under it is PMID 16297146 — peripheral blood mononuclear cells co-cultured with thirteen probiotic strains in a dish. No human was dosed with anything. It is not a clinical study, and it is not a study of this formulation. The first card is a 1999 item about secretory IgA in sport students with no journal, no authors, no DOI and no PMID; it is twenty-seven years old and cannot be found from what the brand provides.
That is the entire evidence base. The Benefits list on this page carries no numbered references at all — unlike the brand’s own Stress Release and Power pages, which do. So the verdict is a genuine absence rather than an open question: no human clinical trial of this formulation was located. The strains are named, which is exactly what makes it answerable.
And the strains are named well. Six organisms, six Winclove designators — W53, W55, W57, W54, W58, W56. On identity, this brand is at the top of the category. On everything downstream of identity it is not: one aggregate figure, 48 mg, 2 Billion CFU, covers all six with no allocation, and there is no basis for that number — no “at manufacture”, no “at expiry”, nothing.
Two billion is the smallest headline count among the practitioner-channel products here — several gummies and single-strain tablets in this audit declare less, down to Puritan’s Pride at 100 million. At $2.25 a day that works out to $1.13 per billion CFU per day — about four times the next worst product in its batch and roughly twenty-seven times the cheapest. Cell count is not a quality metric on its own. A twenty-seven-fold spread between products making overlapping digestive claims is still a fact a buyer can act on.
Two claims on this page have nothing at all behind them: “maintaining healthy levels of Candida”, with zero citations anywhere, and “…as well as reproductive tract health”, which appears in the page’s own metadata, never in its Benefits list, and is supported by nothing.
One organism deserves a careful sentence rather than a loud one. Enterococcus faecium W54 is on this panel, and EFSA excludes the species from its Qualified Presumption of Safety list “based on an ambiguous taxonomic position or the possession of potentially harmful traits.” That is the regulator’s own wording and it is verifiable. It is also true that this exact strain has been given to humans in a published randomised trial with no reported harm. The right use of the EFSA position is a flag for immunocompromised readers and for anyone with a history of enterococcal infection — not an alarm, and not a claim that this product is unsafe.