One product, one panel, one record.
Omni-Biotic Power — label audit
This is the only product in its batch whose retail formula is named by name inside a published trial abstract, at exactly the dose the trial used. The brand still oversold it: two results its own cited study reports as non-significant trends, p = 0.061 and p = 0.054, appear on the product page as benefits, one of them labelled "Significant reduction".
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
59.7 out of 100
Rank 72 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score. This rank is shared with 7 other products — 8 products sit on 59.7 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 86% of the rubric by weight — the share of the five questions below this record could answer. The remaining question is unanswered, and unanswered is not nought: it leaves the divisor rather than dragging the score down. That share travels with the number and is never dropped — this score over 86% 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 | 6 of 6 checked organism slots resolve to at least one human randomised trial under the designator exactly as printed. This counts whether the identity leads to a trial, never what the trial found. | 6 / 6 = 1.0000 | 0.2000 |
| 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 |
0.513333 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.5969. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 59.7 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 | 10 Billion CFU (Probiotic blend, 81 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 — no temporal qualifier appears on the panel. The dose, however, is the story here rather than the basis: 10 billion CFU per sachet is exactly the 1×10¹⁰ CFU per day used in both human trials of this six-strain set. The number matches what was tested; what is missing is any statement about whether it survives to the expiry date.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enterococcus faecium | W54 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PMID 27886064 and PMID 22992437 retrieved and read; EFSA Journal 2020;18(7):6174 via PMC7331632 |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | W22 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PMID 27886064 retrieved and read — the abstract lists this designator in the tested set |
| Lactobacillus brevis | W63 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PMID 27886064 retrieved and read — the abstract lists this designator in the tested set |
| Lactococcus lactis | W58 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PMID 27886064 retrieved and read — the abstract lists this designator in the tested set |
| Bifidobacterium bifidum | W23 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PMID 27886064 retrieved and read — the abstract lists this designator in the tested set |
| Bifidobacterium lactis | W51 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PMID 27886064 retrieved and read — the abstract lists this designator in the tested set |
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-power-side-panelhttps://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0567/5057/1655/files/power-side_3bfb6c5d-37bb-44b9-89a3-fd4eaa9bfd64.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 (4 g) · 28 servings · Calories 12 · Sodium 4 mg (<1%) · Total carbohydrates 2 g (<1%) · Magnesium 55 mg (13% DV) from 375 mg Magnesium Citrate; Probiotic blend 81 mg (10 Billion CFU) †" with six nested organisms — Enterococcus faecium W54, Lactobacillus acidophilus W22, Lactobacillus brevis W63, Lactococcus lactis W58, Bifidobacterium bifidum W23, Bifidobacterium lactis W51. Other ingredients: corn dextrin, magnesium citrate, non-GMO corn starch, potassium chloride, blood orange aroma, plant protein (rice), magnesium sulphate, manganese sulphate, maltodextrin.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — omnibioticlife-power-2026-07-31https://omnibioticlife.com/products/omni-biotic-power-probiotic — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured Fetched directly, HTTP 200, no bot-blocking. SKU OBPO; manufactured in the Netherlands for AllergoSan USA. Source of the $72.00 price, the two clinical-study cards including the "Significant reduction in carbonyl proteins" and "21% improvement in TNF-α" claims, the Cologne List footnote and the general information page it links to, the magnesium copy and its three cited references, the blood-orange-aroma framing, 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.
For this product specifically, 6 organism slots carry a strain with a human RCT under the exact designator printed on the label.
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
$2.57 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $72.00 USD
- What that buys
- 28 sachets, net weight 4.0 oz / 112 g, 1 sachet (4 g) daily, 28 servings ($72.00 ÷ 28 = $2.5714). Cost per billion CFU per day, $0.26 — the best of the three Omni-Biotic SKUs audited together.
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://omnibioticlife.com/products/omni-biotic-power-probiotic — 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Cologne List® (Preventive Doping Research, CePreDo) | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
| Any contents or potency certification | Not checked | 31 July 2026 |
Cologne List® (Preventive Doping Research, CePreDo)
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
The page footnote reads, verbatim, "** Omni-Biotic Power is listed on the Cologne List for Preventive Doping Research (CePreDo) and abides by anti-doping requirements. The listing can be found here:" — and the link goes to koelnerliste.com/en/for-athletes, a general education page rather than a deep link to a register entry. That page contains zero occurrences of "Omni". The issuer's product database sits behind a mandatory Terms-of-Use acceptance checkbox, which was not clicked, so the register was not queried. Status: brand-asserted, unverified. This must not be written up as "not listed" — there is no evidence either way. What the issuer's own ungated pages do say materially narrows what the seal means, verbatim: "The listing of a product on Cologne List® does not mean that the product is strictly free from banned substances. It simply means that the risk of contamination is significantly reduced"; on the manufacturer self-disclosure component, "The information is not verified by the Cologne List"; and "It should be expressly noted that Cologne List® does not include any recommendation to athletes to use a dietary supplement." A Cologne List mark is a doping-contamination risk-reduction signal. It says nothing about CFU count, strain identity, potency at expiry, or efficacy, and it is routinely read as a general quality certification, which it is not.
Any contents or potency certification
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
None claimed. No USP, NSF, Informed Choice or Non-GMO Project mark appears. The brand's cGMP language names no certifying body and the box roundel ("HYPOALLERGENIC · NON-GMO · VEGAN") 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 two-non-significant-results-presented-as-benefits-one-labelled-significant
The page's second clinical-study card, on Lamprecht 2012, claims "Significant reduction in carbonyl proteins (CP), an oxidative stress marker". The study's own abstract says, verbatim, "After 14 weeks, CP concentrations were tendentially lower with probiotics (p = 0.061)" — and the paper defines p<0.05 as significant and p<0.1 as a trend. The same card claims "21% improvement in TNF-α"; the abstract reports TNF-α "tendentially lower in the supplemented group (p = 0.054)", and the card does not say so. The one product in its batch with genuinely good, dose-matched, product-named evidence still relabels two of its own study's explicit non-significant trends as wins. It is checkable against the free abstract in ten seconds.
The record: PMID 22992437 (Lamprecht M et al., J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2012;9:45, NCT01474629), abstract retrieved and read 2026-07-31, against the product page's CLINICAL STUDY #2 card, verbatim — open ithttps://omnibioticlife.com/products/omni-biotic-power-probiotic — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 2 the-cfu-basis-is-unstated
10 billion CFU with no temporal qualifier on the panel. The dose matches what the trials used, and there is no statement about whether it is still there at the expiry date.
The record: Supplement Facts transcribed from the brand's own label image, cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0567/5057/1655/files/power-side_3bfb6c5d-37bb-44b9-89a3-fd4eaa9bfd64.jpg, 2026-07-31
Finding 3 ten-billion-cells-across-six-strains-with-no-per-strain-allocation
One figure, 81 mg and 10 billion CFU, covers all six organisms. Full identity, zero allocation — the brand's consistent pattern across its range.
The record: Panel image transcribed 2026-07-31
Finding 4 the-cologne-list-seal-links-to-a-general-page-not-to-a-register-entry
The footnote says the listing "can be found here" and links to koelnerliste.com/en/for-athletes, which contains zero occurrences of "Omni". The product's actual register entry is not linked, and the seal's real scope — reduced contamination risk, explicitly not absence of banned substances, explicitly not a recommendation — is not explained anywhere on the page.
The record: Product page footnote and its link target, both read 2026-07-31, against the issuer's own ungated scope statements at koelnerliste.com — open ithttps://www.koelnerliste.com/en/for-athletes — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 5 enterococcus-faecium-is-excluded-from-efsas-qualified-presumption-of-safety
E. faecium W54 is the first organism on this panel. EFSA's Panel on Biological Hazards excludes the species from QPS "based on an ambiguous taxonomic position or the possession of potentially harmful traits". Here the strain was in the human trial, which raises the evidence and does not change the regulatory position.
The record: EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards, EFSA Journal 2020;18(7):6174, retrieved in full via PMC7331632, against PMID 27886064, both 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 6 fifty-five-milligrams-of-magnesium-described-as-therapeutically-relevant
The panel carries Magnesium 55 mg from 375 mg of magnesium citrate — 13% of the Daily Value. The page calls it "a therapeutically relevant amount" and cites three magnesium papers. "Therapeutically relevant" is doing a lot of work at 13% DV.
The record: Panel image transcribed 2026-07-31 against the product page's own magnesium copy and its three cited references, confirmed to exist as listed
Finding 7 the-supporting-trials-are-small
n=23 and n=33. Both are real randomised placebo-controlled trials and both are small, and Lamprecht 2012 carries no randomised-controlled-trial publication type in its indexing despite its design — which means a publication-type filter will miss it, exactly as it does for other strains in this project.
The record: PMID 27886064 (n=33) and PMID 22992437 (n=23), abstracts retrieved and read 2026-07-31
Finding 8 the-same-uncited-comparative-claims-as-the-rest-of-the-brand-line
"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 on the brand's other SKU pages, with no citation, method, protocol, named comparator or measurement period. The unit price again renders as "Liquid error (snippets/price line 95): divided by 0".
The record: Product page copy and rendered output, verbatim, 2026-07-31
Finding 9 blood-orange-aroma-crafted-to-mimic-a-sports-energy-drink
The other-ingredients line carries "blood orange aroma", and the page describes it as "crafted to mimic the refreshing taste of popular sports energy drinks" — flavouring in a product whose selling point is clinical rigour. Cosmetic, and worth one line. The page also carries only 8 reviews, which is not a usable quality signal in either direction.
The record: Panel other-ingredients line and product page copy, both 2026-07-31
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.
- Cologne List® (Preventive Doping Research, CePreDo) status
- The page footnote reads, verbatim, "** Omni-Biotic Power is listed on the Cologne List for Preventive Doping Research (CePreDo) and abides by anti-doping requirements. The listing can be found here:" — and the link goes to koelnerliste.com/en/for-athletes, a general education page rather than a deep link to a register entry. That page contains zero occurrences of "Omni". The issuer's product database sits behind a mandatory Terms-of-Use acceptance checkbox, which was not clicked, so the register was not queried. Status: brand-asserted, unverified. This must not be written up as "not listed" — there is no evidence either way. What the issuer's own ungated pages do say materially narrows what the seal means, verbatim: "The listing of a product on Cologne List® does not mean that the product is strictly free from banned substances. It simply means that the risk of contamination is significantly reduced"; on the manufacturer self-disclosure component, "The information is not verified by the Cologne List"; and "It should be expressly noted that Cologne List® does not include any recommendation to athletes to use a dietary supplement." A Cologne List mark is a doping-contamination risk-reduction signal. It says nothing about CFU count, strain identity, potency at expiry, or efficacy, and it is routinely read as a general quality certification, which it is not.
- Any contents or potency certification status
- None claimed. No USP, NSF, Informed Choice or Non-GMO Project mark appears. The brand's cGMP language names no certifying body and the box roundel ("HYPOALLERGENIC · NON-GMO · VEGAN") is a self-asserted formulation claim.
- The current standing of the Cologne List® listing
- The issuer's product database is gated behind a mandatory Terms-of-Use acceptance checkbox, which was not clicked, so the register was never queried. The brand's own link points at a general information page that contains no occurrence of "Omni". Recorded as brand-asserted and unverified — explicitly not as "not listed".
- Funding and conflict-of-interest disclosures for the two supporting trials
- Not retrievable from the abstracts of PMID 27886064 or PMID 22992437. Nothing about the funding or author affiliations of either study is characterised here, in either direction, without the full texts.
- A dose comparison for the magnesium in this sachet
- The panel's 55 mg of magnesium, from 375 mg of magnesium citrate, is 13% of the Daily Value; that percentage is verified. The page describes it as "a therapeutically relevant amount" and cites three magnesium papers (Reno 2022, J Strength Cond Res; Brilla & Haley 1992, J Am Coll Nutr; Fiorentini 2021, Nutrients). Those citations were confirmed to exist as listed, but their abstracts were not pulled in this pass, so no dose ratio is published here beyond the Daily Value percentage. The observation on the record is only that "therapeutically relevant" is doing a lot of work at 13% DV.
- The per-strain CFU of any of the six organisms
- One aggregate figure — 81 mg, 10 billion CFU — covers all six, with no allocation disclosed. The trials dosed the combination the same way, so the total matches; the split does not exist in either place.
- What the 10 billion CFU is measured against
- No temporal qualifier appears on the panel.
- Any government label record for this product, or for this brand
- None exists, and the absence is brand-wide: Omni-Biotic → 0, Omni Biotic → 0 brand matches, OmniBiotic → 0, AllergoSan → 0, Caricol → 0, Omni-Logic → 0 against NIH's label database.
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.
The identity chain closes. That almost never happens, and it is worth saying before anything else.
Two human trials sit behind this sachet. PMID 27886064 (Nutrients 2016) randomised 33 trained athletes for 12 weeks at 1×10¹⁰ CFU/day of exactly this six-strain set, listed by designator in the abstract — B. bifidum W23, B. lactis W51, E. faecium W54, L. acidophilus W22, L. brevis W63, L. lactis W58. The proportion with at least one upper-respiratory symptom was 0.79 on placebo against 0.35 on probiotic (p = 0.02). PMID 22992437 (J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2012, NCT01474629) randomised 23 trained men for 14 weeks, again at 10¹⁰ CFU/day, and its abstract names the retail product: “multi-species probiotics (10¹⁰ CFU/day, Ecologic®Performance or OMNi-BiOTiC®POWER)”. Faecal zonulin fell significantly (p = 0.019).
And the retail dose is the trial dose. Both trials used 10 billion CFU a day. The sachet delivers 10 billion CFU. In a category where the usual finding is a product at a quarter or triple of what was tested, this one matches — and one of its trials identifies the finished commercial formula by name in a PubMed abstract. That combination is rare enough to state plainly.
Then the brand oversells it anyway. The page’s own study card on Lamprecht 2012 claims a “Significant reduction in carbonyl proteins (CP), an oxidative stress marker.” The study’s abstract says: “After 14 weeks, CP concentrations were tendentially lower with probiotics (p = 0.061)” — and the paper itself defines p<0.05 as significant and p<0.1 as a trend. The same card claims “21% improvement in TNF-α”; the abstract reports TNF-α “tendentially lower… (p = 0.054)”, which the card does not mention. Two explicitly non-significant trends, converted into a benefits list, on the one product that did not need to. Anyone can check it against the free abstract in ten seconds.
The seal needs its scope attached or it misleads. The page says Power is listed on the Cologne List® and links to a general athlete-education page containing no occurrence of “Omni” — not to a register entry. The issuer’s own database sits behind a Terms-of-Use gate that was not clicked, so nothing here says the product is absent from it. What the issuer does say, on its ungated pages, is that listing “does not mean that the product is strictly free from banned substances”, only that contamination risk is “significantly reduced”, and that the scheme “does not include any recommendation to athletes to use a dietary supplement.” It is a contamination-risk signal. It says nothing about CFU count, strain identity, potency at expiry, or whether the product works.
Two label notes. The 10 billion has no basis — no “at manufacture”, no “at expiry” — and it is one figure across six organisms with no allocation. And the 55 mg of magnesium, described on the page as “a therapeutically relevant amount”, is 13% of the Daily Value; that percentage is what is verified here, and no comparison against any magnesium trial dose is published, because the cited papers were not opened in this pass.
One thing the brand does not do, and should be credited for: Power’s evidence is in trained men — n=23, 100% male — and Omni-Biotic never genders the product. In a category built on inventing sex-specific SKUs with no sex-specific ingredients, a brand holding male trial data and declining to build a men’s product out of it is worth noticing.