One product, one panel, one record.
Zenwise Tribiotic Complex — label audit
There is no Supplement Facts panel on this product's page in any form — not in the HTML, not as an image among the 42 on the page — and the only badge styled as a certification is a Great Place To Work employee-survey award.
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.
- What did not survive verification
- Part of this page was refuted or could not be reproduced Two things about this record could not be verified and both are load-bearing. First, there is no Supplement Facts panel to audit: none exists in the page HTML and none is among the 42 unique images on the page, so every organism here was read from an ingredient list rather than from a panel, no per-strain quantity exists to record, and no federal label record exists as an independent copy — Zenwise has filed 46 labels with the NIH database and this product is not one of them. Because there is no panel, this page publishes no per-product denominator over its organism list. Second, the capsule count that the servings and the cost per day rest on is not stated anywhere on the product page; the 60-count comes from the brand's own Amazon listing for the same product and is consistent with the SKU suffix and the page's one-month-delivery framing, but it is a cross-source inference and the $1.27 per day figure inherits that uncertainty. Finally, no per-slot RCT total is published: nine of the ten designators were queried and BB-12 was not separately counted, so a total would mean inventing that slot's value.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
No score and no rank
No Label Verifiability Score is published for this product, and none is estimated. A score must rest on at least 50% of the rubric by weight; this record answers 22%, so a number here would present an average of one or two components as a summary of five.
The product stays in the audit and stays on this site. It is listed, unranked, on the label audit, and it is absent from the ranking rather than placed at the bottom of it: an unanswered question is not a bad answer, and ranking it as though it were would be a number about our reach dressed up as a fact about the product.
| Component | Weight | What was counted, and where | Fraction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strain identity printed on the panel | 0.24 | The panel is not fully transcribed — 10 organism slots are on this record and they are the ones a cleared finding named. A share computed over them would describe our transcription, not the label. | Not answered |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | The panel is not fully transcribed — 10 organism slots are on this record and they are the ones a cleared finding named. A share computed over them would describe our transcription, not the label. | Not answered |
| 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 |
| Printed designators that lead to a human trial | 0.20 | The panel is not fully transcribed — 10 organism slots are on this record and they are the ones a cleared finding named. A share computed over them would describe our transcription, not the label. | Not answered |
| 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 |
This record answers 22% of the rubric by weight, below the 50% floor a published score requires. Scoring it would present an average of one or two components as a summary of five. Listed, unranked, and the components it did answer are shown above.
The ranking of the 154 products that can be scored is on the home page, with what the score measures and what it does not.
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 | 25 Billion CFU, stated in body copy only |
| What that count is measured against | No basis stated |
| Strain designators | All organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 10 — partial; the panel is not fully transcribed |
| Marketed as | Marketed to women |
No CFU basis appears anywhere. Not at manufacture, not at expiry, no "guaranteed through" language, no storage-conditions qualifier. The page says "25 Billion CFU" and stops.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lactobacillus crispatus | LBV 88 | — not stated separately | Human records, no RCT | PubMed E-utilities, exact-phrase designator with randomized controlled trial[pt]; then unfiltered "crispatus LBV" and "Astarte Lactobacillus" |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus | LBV 96 | — not stated separately | Human records, no RCT | PubMed E-utilities, exact-phrase designator with randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Lactobacillus gasseri | LBV 150N | — not stated separately | Human records, no RCT | PubMed E-utilities, exact-phrase designator with randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Lactobacillus jensenii | LBV 116 | — not stated separately | Human records, no RCT | PubMed E-utilities, exact-phrase designator with randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Lactobacillus plantarum | UALp-05 | — not stated separately | No records | PubMed E-utilities, exact-phrase designator with randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Bifidobacterium lactis | BB-12 | — not stated separately | Not yet checked | Not separately counted in this pass |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | UALa-01 | — not stated separately | No records | PubMed E-utilities, exact-phrase designator with randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus | LGG | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PubMed E-utilities, exact-phrase designator with randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Bifidobacterium bifidum | UABb-10 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PubMed E-utilities, exact-phrase designator with randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Lactobacillus reuteri | DSM 17648 (Pylopass™) | — not stated separately | Human RCT | "DSM 17648" (spaced) returned 0; "DSM17648" (unspaced) returned 2 |
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.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — zenwise-tribiotic-complex-2026-07-31https://zenwise.com/products/tribiotic-complex — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured HTTP 200, fetched directly. This is the artefact behind every statement on this page, and a large part of what it records is an absence: no Supplement Facts panel in the HTML, none among the 42 unique images enumerated on the page, no per-strain CFU, no blend mass, no serving-size table and no capsule count. The ten organisms and their designators come from the page's ingredients list, which is the only place they appear. Also present: chicory inulin as prebiotic, silicon dioxide, the price ($38.00, JSON-LD offers.price, variant sku R558-00-060), the subscription tiers, and the women's-health positioning quoted in the findings.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — zenwise-tribiotic-amazon-B0GP7VWSTR-2026-07-31https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GP7VWSTR — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured The brand's own Amazon listing for the same product, and the only source found for the capsule count: "Zenwise Health Tribiotic, Probiotics, Prebiotics for Women - 60 CT | 25 Billion CFU". Used solely for the count, which the brand's own product page does not state.
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
$1.27 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $38.00 USD
- What that buys
- 60 capsules, 2 capsules daily, 30 servings per container. The capsule count is not stated anywhere on the product page — see the verification flag. Price from the page's JSON-LD offers.price, variant sku R558-00-060. Subscription tiers offered are "Buy 2, Get 1 FREE" and "Buy 3, Get 2 FREE", with "skip or cancel anytime"; cancellation terms were not tested.
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://zenwise.com/products/tribiotic-complex — 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Great Place To Work® Certified | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
Great Place To Work® Certified
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
The single asset on the product page named as a certification is Zenwise_US_English_2026_Certification_Badge.png. Downloaded and read, it says "Great Place To Work® Certified — FEB 2026-FEB 2027 — USA". This is an employee-survey workplace award. It certifies nothing about the supplement — not identity, not CFU, not purity, not potency, not contaminants. It appears on a product page, styled as a certification badge, next to "Clinically studied probiotics". Verification was attempted at the issuer: greatplacetowork.com returned 404 on both search paths tried. The verification question is beside the point, since the mark is not a product certification either way.
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.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 no-supplement-facts-panel-anywhere
Not in the HTML and not as an image among the 42 on the page. No per-strain CFU, no blend mass, no serving-size table. The entire disclosure is an ingredient list plus the number "25 Billion CFU" in body copy.
The record: zenwise.com/products/tribiotic-complex, full image enumeration and HTML scan, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://zenwise.com/products/tribiotic-complex — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 2 no-cfu-basis-stated-at-all
No temporal basis of any kind — not at manufacture, not at expiry, no storage qualifier. Of the five products audited alongside it, four state an at-expiry basis and this is the only one that states nothing.
The record: zenwise.com product page, full-page scan for potency-basis language, 2026-07-31
Finding 3 no-per-strain-cfu-across-ten-organisms-one-of-them-non-viable
Ten organisms share one undisclosed allocation, and the tenth — L. reuteri DSM 17648, sold as Pylopass™ — is a killed-cell postbiotic that contributes no viable CFU.
The record: zenwise.com ingredient list, 2026-07-31
Finding 4 capsule-count-not-disclosed-on-the-product-page
A shopper cannot learn from the product page how many capsules are in the bottle. The 60-count comes from the brand's Amazon listing.
The record: zenwise.com product page description, FAQ, variant titles and images, all checked 2026-07-31
Finding 5 certification-badge-is-a-great-place-to-work-employer-award
The one badge styled as a certification is an employee-survey workplace award, placed on a product page next to "Clinically studied probiotics". A shopper scanning for a quality mark sees a red-and-blue "Certified" shield and has no reason to guess it is about staff satisfaction. No product-quality certification of any kind is claimed — no NSF, no USP, no IPRO, no Informed Choice, no Non-GMO Project, no third-party CFU verification, no COA.
The record: Zenwise_US_English_2026_Certification_Badge.png downloaded and read, 2026-07-31
Finding 6 no-dsld-record-while-the-brand-has-filed-forty-six-others
Zenwise has 46 label records in the NIH database and this product is not among them, established on four independent queries.
The record: DSLD queries "Tribiotic", "Tribiotic Complex", "Tri-Biotic" and brand-scoped "Zenwise", 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 7 clinically-studied-strains-is-carried-by-two-of-ten
Defensible for LGG and BB-12. Four of the ten strains — the LBV/Astarte set — return zero RCTs under their individual designators, and the blend's own evidence is vaginal-endpoint-only: a bacterial vaginosis trial, a meta-analysis of Nugent score, and a recurrent-UTI trial that is a protocol with no results.
The record: zenwise.com page copy against PubMed exact-phrase queries; PMID 29065710, 31012733, 41943076
Finding 8 begins-working-the-same-day-is-uncited
Page copy, verbatim: "It begins working within your digestive system the same day" — a speed-of-onset claim with no cited support.
The record: zenwise.com product page, verbatim, 2026-07-31
Finding 9 pre-2020-nomenclature-throughout
The ingredient list uses Lactobacillus for organisms reclassified in 2020 as Lacticaseibacillus, Lactiplantibacillus and Limosilactobacillus.
The record: zenwise.com ingredient list, 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.
- The full Supplement Facts panel
- Only 10 organism slots are transcribed here, and they are the ones a cleared finding named. The rest of the panel has not been read into this record, so no per-product percentage may be computed from it.
- 1 strain designator not looked up
- These designators are printed on the panel and have not been searched. They are unchecked, not empty.
- Great Place To Work® Certified status
- The single asset on the product page named as a certification is Zenwise_US_English_2026_Certification_Badge.png. Downloaded and read, it says "Great Place To Work® Certified — FEB 2026-FEB 2027 — USA". This is an employee-survey workplace award. It certifies nothing about the supplement — not identity, not CFU, not purity, not potency, not contaminants. It appears on a product page, styled as a certification badge, next to "Clinically studied probiotics". Verification was attempted at the issuer: greatplacetowork.com returned 404 on both search paths tried. The verification question is beside the point, since the mark is not a product certification either way.
- A men’s-versus-women’s label diff
- The same brand’s women’s SKU has not been compared against this panel.
- Any Supplement Facts panel
- There is none on this page in any form. All 42 unique images on the page were enumerated — bottle renders, seven lifestyle "Frame" graphics, a model shot, a pill shot, nav images and one certification badge — and none is a supplement facts panel. There is no panel in the HTML, no panel image, no per-strain CFU, no blend mass in milligrams and no serving-size table. The disclosure consists of an ingredient list and the number "25 Billion CFU" in body copy.
- How many capsules are in the bottle
- Not stated anywhere on the product page — not in the description, the FAQ, the variant title or any image. The 60-count used to compute servings and cost per day comes from the brand's own Amazon listing for the same product ("Zenwise Health Tribiotic, Probiotics, Prebiotics for Women - 60 CT | 25 Billion CFU", ASIN B0GP7VWSTR) and is consistent with the SKU suffix -060 and the page's "Buy 1 → One Month Delivery" framing at 2 capsules a day. That a shopper cannot learn how many capsules are in the bottle from the product page is itself the finding.
- How the 25 billion CFU is split across the ten organisms
- Not disclosed, and there is no panel on which it could be. One of the ten, DSM 17648, is a killed-cell preparation contributing no viable CFU at all, so whether the 25 billion is counted before or after that inclusion is undeterminable.
- Any federal label record
- None exists, established on four independent queries. "Tribiotic" returns 0 hits; "Tribiotic Complex" returns 60 hits, none Zenwise and none a Tribiotic product (matched on "Complex" — ZM-Complex, Ginseng Complex, Prostate Complex); "Tri-Biotic" hyphenated returns 0; and a brand-scoped "Zenwise" query returns 46 Zenwise records across 35 unique product names, none of them this one. The brand files labels — Digestive Enzymes, Good Gut Gummies, the Probiotic+Kombucha line, ZenDEFENSE, No Bloat — and has not filed this one.
- A per-slot RCT total for this product
- Nine of the ten designators were queried; BB-12 was described as widely studied but was not separately counted, so no total can be published without inventing that slot's value. Three slots are established as carrying at least one human RCT — LGG, UABb-10 and DSM17648 — and four (the LBV/Astarte set) return zero as individual designators.
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.
Start with what is not here. There is no Supplement Facts panel on this page in any form. All 42 unique images were enumerated — bottle renders, seven lifestyle graphics, a model shot, a pill shot, navigation images, one badge — and not one is a panel. There is none in the HTML either. No per-strain CFU, no blend mass in milligrams, no serving-size table, and, remarkably, no capsule count: a shopper cannot learn from this product page how many capsules are in the bottle. Nor is there a federal label record to fall back on; Zenwise has filed 46 labels with the NIH database, and this product is not one of them.
What the page does publish is an ingredient list, and it is genuinely good: ten organisms, ten designators, plus a named prebiotic and a named postbiotic rather than a “proprietary blend”. Credit that. Then notice the consequence of having no panel — the number “25 Billion CFU” appears in body copy with nothing behind it. No allocation across ten organisms, and no basis of any kind, temporal or otherwise. Not at manufacture, not at expiry, no storage qualifier. One of the ten, L. reuteri DSM 17648, is a killed-cell postbiotic that contributes no viable CFU at all, so whether the 25 billion is counted before or after that inclusion cannot be determined.
The one badge on the page styled as a certification was downloaded and read. It says “Great Place To Work® Certified — FEB 2026–FEB 2027 — USA.” That is an employee-survey workplace award. It attests to nothing about identity, potency, purity or contaminants, and it sits next to the phrase “Clinically studied probiotics”. No product-quality certification of any kind is claimed here.
On the evidence: LGG is the most-studied probiotic strain in existence and BB-12 is widely studied. Four of the ten — the LBV set sold as Astarte™ — return zero RCTs under their individual designators. The blend does have real human evidence, and it is worth being precise about what kind: a randomised trial in bacterial vaginosis, a meta-analysis of Nugent score, and a recurrent-UTI trial in women that is still only a published protocol with no results.
Which brings up the thing this site has to say plainly. This is a women’s product. Not a unisex probiotic missing a men’s counterpart — an explicitly and exclusively female formula: “Formulated for women, by women.”, “Vaginal health and freshness support”, “Optimal vaginal pH balance”. Four of its ten strains are a vaginal-health blend, and L. crispatus and L. jensenii are vaginal-niche organisms with no established male application. If this ever appears in a “best probiotic for men” roundup, that is a retailer or aggregator error, and the brand did not make the claim.