2026 Plant Protein Buyer’s Guide
Best Plant-Based Protein Powder 2026: We Ranked 20.Vegan powders, scored on the same rules as our whey rankings.
Pea, rice, pumpkin seed, peanut and multi-plant blends: plant powders vary more than whey does, in protein per scoop, in price and in how much of their testing you can check. We put 20 of them on one published scoring system.
The two simplest powders won. Only 2 of 20 reached Top Tier, and both are single-ingredient pea proteins with a public certification record.
This article is educational and is not medical advice. It does not diagnose, treat or prescribe. Speak to a clinician about your own circumstances. Read our full health disclaimer.
We did not taste or lab-test these products. Scores come from labels, prices and public testing records.
Our top picks
Each pick leads on something specific: overall score, cost, protein per calorie or verification. The full ranking is below.
We earn a commission if you buy through our links. It never changes what we recommend, or what you pay.
Naked Pea
High evidence confidenceOne ingredient, a certification record and the lowest cost per gram of protein in the field.
View detailed review →Check price at AmazonNOW Sports Organic Pea Protein
High evidence confidenceCertified, single-ingredient and the second-lowest cost per 30 g, without buying 5 lb.
View detailed review →Check price at AmazonVega Sport Premium Protein
High evidence confidenceNSF Certified for Sport for this flavor, with 30 g of protein per scoop.
View detailed review →Check price at AmazonOptimum Nutrition Gold Standard 100% Plant
High evidence confidenceA certification record and a low price, sold and shipped by Amazon.com.
View detailed review →Check price at AmazonLegion Plant+
High evidence confidenceA published lot-specific lab report and a label with no undisclosed blends.
View detailed review →Check price at AmazonShop by buyer priority
Start with what matters most to you. Each card shows the number that earned the spot.
Keeping muscle as you age
Naked Pea
Pair regular strength training with enough daily protein. Our #1 plant powder gives the most protein per calorie.
See the review →Eating less on a GLP-1
Vega Sport Premium Protein
A full 30 g of protein in one scoop, so a smaller serving still delivers plenty of protein.
See the review →Lowest cost per 30 g
Naked Pea
The lowest cost of the 20 powders we ranked, from our #1 plant powder.
See the review →Adding protein to meals you already eat
NOW Sports Organic Pea Protein
Pea protein and nothing else, so it blends into oatmeal, soup or a smoothie.
See the review →Evidence-first buyers
Ora So Lean & So Clean
Informed Sport plus published batch certificates.
See the review →Avoiding pea
Sprout Living Pumpkin Seed
A single-ingredient pumpkin seed protein for anyone avoiding pea.
See the review →Best pea protein powder, and other single-ingredient options
Three of the 20 powders contain one ingredient and nothing else: two pea proteins and one pumpkin seed protein. With no sweeteners, creamers or blends, they score full marks for label transparency, and they are the easiest to fit into your own recipes.
The two pea proteins took first and second place overall. The pumpkin seed protein is the pick if you want to avoid pea, but it carries more fat, so it delivers far less protein per calorie. Same scores, same rules as the full ranking below.
| Overall rank | Powder | Score | Tier | Cost of 30 g protein | Protein per 100 cal | Testing record |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Naked Pea | 94 | Top Tier | $0.85 | 22.5 g | Independently verified |
| 2 | NOW Sports Organic Pea Protein | 84 | Top Tier | $1.51 | 18.8 g | Independently verified |
| 14 | Sprout Living Simple Pumpkin Seed Protein | 45 | Fair | $3.18 | 13.3 g | Testing claimed |
Four findings that shaped the ranking
The simplest powders won
The two single-ingredient pea proteins took first and second place, the only Top Tier scores in the field. Powders that added creamers, greens or superfood blends gave up protein per calorie and label transparency in exchange.
Protein per calorie is where plant powders trail whey
The typical plant powder delivered 16.7 g of protein per 100 calories, against 20.8 g for the typical whey in our whey rankings. Only 1 of 20 plant powders reached 20 g. That is mostly the recipes, not the plants: plain pea protein reached 22.5 g, within a fraction of a gram of the best whey isolates.
Most testing claims could not be checked
8 of 20 powders appear in a certification program’s public register and 2 more publish a lot-specific lab report. Another 8 say they are tested but publish nothing a buyer can check, and 2 make no testing claim at all.
Price ran from 85 cents to almost five dollars
The cost of 30 g of protein ranged from $0.85 (Naked Pea, ranked #1) to $4.94 (Ritual Essential Protein, ranked #13). Paying more bought neither more protein per calorie nor a stronger testing record.
All 20 Products Ranked Using Our Scoring Model
Strong overall performers that scored well across third-party verification, cost per 30 g of protein, protein per calorie and label transparency.
Good choices that performed well in most areas and may be especially attractive for specific buyer priorities.
Products with strengths worth considering, though higher-scoring alternatives were available in this comparison.
Products that trailed the field under this scoring model and were outperformed by multiple alternatives.
Tiers summarize overall performance under this scoring model. They do not indicate product safety or individual suitability.
Pillar columns show weighted contributions to the 100-point overall score. The four contributions add to the published total; raw scores out of 25 remain in each product’s detailed audit trail.
| Rank | Product | RecommendationScore tier | Overall scoreWeighted total · max 100 | Cost per 30 g of ProteinWeighted contribution · max 25 | Third-Party VerificationWeighted contribution · max 30 | Protein per 100 CaloriesWeighted contribution · max 25 | Label TransparencyWeighted contribution · max 20 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Naked PeaUnflavored · 5 lb bag | Top Tier | 94/100 | 23/25$0.85 per 30 g | 30/30Independently verified | 21/2522.5 g per 100 cal | 20/20ingredient panel |
| 2 | NOW Sports Organic Pea ProteinUnflavored · 1.5 lb | Top Tier | 84/100 | 18/25$1.51 per 30 g | 30/30Independently verified | 16/2518.8 g per 100 cal | 20/20ingredient panel |
| 3 | Vega Sport Premium ProteinVanilla · 1.83 lb | Recommended | 69/100 | 13/25$2.23 per 30 g | 30/30Independently verified | 14/2517.6 g per 100 cal | 12/20ingredient panel |
| 4 | Garden of Life SPORT Organic Plant-Based ProteinVanilla · 1.88 lb | Recommended | 64/100 | 13/25$2.21 per 30 g | 30/30Independently verified | 14/2517.6 g per 100 cal | 7.2/20ingredient panel |
| 5 | Optimum Nutrition Gold Standard 100% PlantCreamy Vanilla · 1.63 lb | Recommended | 62/100 | 13/25$2.19 per 30 g | 30/30Independently verified | 12/2516.0 g per 100 cal | 7.2/20ingredient panel |
| 6 | Garden of Life RAW Organic ProteinVanilla · 20 servings | Recommended | 61/100 | 11/25$2.43 per 30 g | 30/30Independently verified | 13/2516.9 g per 100 cal | 7.2/20ingredient panel |
| 7 | Legion Plant+Vanilla · 40 servings | Recommended | 60/100 | 8/25$2.81 per 30 g | 21.6/30Product-specific report | 15/2518.5 g per 100 cal | 15.2/20ingredient panel |
| 8 | Momentous Essential Plant-Based ProteinVanilla Spice · 22 servings | Recommended | 59/100 | 4/25$3.41 per 30 g | 30/30Independently verified | 13/2516.7 g per 100 cal | 12/20ingredient panel |
| 9 | Ora Organic So Lean & So CleanVanilla · 1.36 lb | Fair | 52/100 | 1/25$3.82 per 30 g | 30/30Independently verified | 14/2517.7 g per 100 cal | 7.2/20ingredient panel |
| 10 | Sunwarrior Warrior BlendVanilla · 32 servings | Fair | 51/100 | 11/25$2.48 per 30 g | 12/30Testing claimed | 16/2518.9 g per 100 cal | 12/20ingredient panel |
| 11 | Truvani Organic Plant Based ProteinVanilla · 18 servings | Fair | 48/100 | 5/25$3.25 per 30 g | 12/30Testing claimed | 11/2515.4 g per 100 cal | 20/20ingredient panel |
| 12 | PlantFusion Complete ProteinCreamy Vanilla Bean · 2 lb | Fair | 45/100 | 12/25$2.37 per 30 g | 12/30Testing claimed | 14/2517.5 g per 100 cal | 7.2/20ingredient panel |
| 13 | Ritual Essential Protein Daily Shake 18+Vanilla · 1 lb | Fair | 45/100 | 0/25$4.94 per 30 g | 12/30Testing claimed | 13/2516.7 g per 100 cal | 20/20ingredient panel |
| 14 | Sprout Living Simple Pumpkin Seed ProteinUnflavored · 1 lb | Fair | 45/100 | 5/25$3.18 per 30 g | 12/30Testing claimed | 8/2513.3 g per 100 cal | 20/20ingredient panel |
| 15 | KOS Organic Plant ProteinVanilla · 28 servings | Fair | 43/100 | 7/25$2.95 per 30 g | 21.6/30Product-specific report | 7/2512.5 g per 100 cal | 7.2/20ingredient panel |
| 16 | Vega Protein + SupergreensVanilla · 1.68 lb | Fair | 42/100 | 14/25$2.07 per 30 g | 0/30Not found in our search | 13/2516.7 g per 100 cal | 15.2/20ingredient panel |
| 17 | Orgain Organic Protein Plant BasedVanilla Bean · 2.03 lb | Fair | 42/100 | 14/25$2.11 per 30 g | 12/30Testing claimed | 9/2514.0 g per 100 cal | 7.2/20ingredient panel |
| 18 | OWYN 100% Plant-Based Protein PowderSmooth Vanilla · 2.2 lb | Fair | 41/100 | 13/25$2.14 per 30 g | 12/30Testing claimed | 9/2514.3 g per 100 cal | 7.2/20ingredient panel |
| 19 | PB2 Performance Peanut ProteinMadagascar Vanilla · 2 lb | Not Recommended | 39/100 | 15/25$1.86 per 30 g | 0/30Not found in our search | 4/2510.5 g per 100 cal | 20/20ingredient panel |
| 20 | Four Sigmatic Organic Plant-Based ProteinSweet Vanilla · 15 servings | Not Recommended | 25/100 | 2/25$3.61 per 30 g | 12/30Testing claimed | 4/2510.5 g per 100 cal | 7.2/20ingredient panel |
Prices checked October 30, 2026 at Amazon. Rounding note: Scores display as whole numbers; ranking order uses the unrounded result, and an exact tie is broken by the higher Protein per 100 Calories score.
Get our free 7-day protein meal plan, plus the label checklist
Join the email and you’ll get a week of everyday meals at about 25 to 35 grams of protein each, our protein label checklist and a fill-in protein plan, all in one download as soon as you confirm. After that, a short note when a product moves up or down, plus new guides and rankings as they publish.
Plus a heads-up when we post a new guide or our rankings or prices change.
You’ll get one email to confirm your address. After that, about two emails a month, never more than one a week, and you can unsubscribe in one click. We never sell your data.
The Evidence Behind Every Score
Review the buyer summary, score breakdown, evidence classification and complete audit trail for each product. Every score is tied to the exact flavor and package size shown.
Naked Pea
Bottom line. One ingredient, a public certification record and the lowest cost per 30 g of protein in the field. It leads the ranking because it scores well on all four measures at once, not because of a single claim.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Why it ranked here
One of only two powders with full marks for both testing evidence and label transparency, and the lowest cost in the field at $0.85 per 30 g of protein. It also gives the most protein per calorie (22.5 g per 100 calories); the few points it gives up are there and on cost (21 and 23 of 25).
Pros
- Public certification record (Informed Choice)
- Lowest cost per 30 g of protein of all 20
- Single-ingredient formula
Cons
- Sold only in large bags; the price advantage depends on buying 5 lb
- Unflavored pea protein has an earthy taste some buyers dislike
What stands out
- The only plant powder in this comparison above 22 g of protein per 100 calories.
- Part of its price lead comes from the 5 lb bag. Smaller sizes of the same powder cost more per gram.
- Naked also markets an NSF mark on this product. That mark is NSF Contents Certified, a different and lesser program than NSF Certified for Sport, and it earns nothing here.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Unflavored · 5 lb bag. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
23/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $0.85 for 30 g of protein ($0.0283 per gram: $57.99 ÷ (75.6 servings × 27 g)) maps to 23/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
25/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Public certification record. The reviewed product appears by name in a public record maintained by an independent certification program. Under the verification ladder, that earns 25 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 30% = 30.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
21/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 22.5 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 21.94–22.62 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 21/25.
4. Label Transparency
25/25 base pointsThe panel does not hide ingredient amounts inside an undisclosed blend.
The formula contains ten or fewer listed ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 20% = 20.0 points.
Weighted score
23.0 cost points + 30.0 third-party verification points + 21.0 protein points + 20.0 label points = 94.0, displayed as 94.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Naked Nutrition), one-time price $57.99, checked October 30, 2026.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: Informed Choice lists Naked Pea by name in its public register (product page naked-nutrition/naked-pea), confirmed October 16, 2026.
NOW Sports Organic Pea Protein
Bottom line. An unflavored, single-ingredient pea protein with an Informed Sport listing and the second-lowest cost per 30 g of protein. Its one weakness is a small scoop: 15 g of protein per serving.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Why it ranked here
The other powder with full marks for both testing evidence and label transparency, and the second-lowest cost at $1.51 per 30 g of protein. It trails #1 because it costs more per gram ($1.51 vs. $0.85) and gives less protein per 100 calories (18.8 g vs. 22.5 g).
Pros
- Public certification record (Informed Sport)
- Second-lowest cost per 30 g of protein
- Single-ingredient formula
Cons
- 15 g of protein per scoop, so you may need to use more than one scoop to meet your protein target
- Protein per calorie is good but well behind Naked Pea
What stands out
- Informed Sport lists this product with individually dated batch entries, a genuine per-lot record.
- NOW’s own site and the Amazon title say 14 g of protein per scoop; the registered label and two retailers say 15 g. We scored the registered 15 g. At 14 g it would still rank second.
- A good starting point if you want certification without buying a 5 lb bag.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Unflavored · 1.5 lb. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
18/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $1.51 for 30 g of protein ($0.0503 per gram: $25.73 ÷ (34 servings × 15 g)) maps to 18/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
25/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Public certification record. The reviewed product appears by name in a public record maintained by an independent certification program. Under the verification ladder, that earns 25 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 30% = 30.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
16/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 18.8 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 18.54–19.22 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 16/25.
4. Label Transparency
25/25 base pointsThe panel does not hide ingredient amounts inside an undisclosed blend.
The formula contains ten or fewer listed ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 20% = 20.0 points.
Weighted score
18.0 cost points + 30.0 third-party verification points + 16.0 protein points + 20.0 label points = 84.0, displayed as 84.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Amazon.com), one-time price $25.73, checked October 30, 2026.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: Informed Sport lists NOW Sports Organic Pea Protein in its public register (product page now-foods/now-sports-organic-pea-protein), confirmed October 16, 2026.
Vega Sport Premium Protein
Bottom line. 30 g of protein per scoop, NSF Certified for Sport and an Informed Choice listing. It ranks third because its protein blend does not show how much of each plant is used.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Why it ranked here
Full marks for testing evidence (NSF Certified for Sport and Informed Choice). It trails #2 mainly on label transparency, because its protein blend doesn’t state how much of each plant is used (15 of 25), and on cost ($2.23 per 30 g of protein).
Pros
- NSF Certified for Sport, flavor-specific listing
- 30 g of protein per scoop, among the most in the field
- Seven ingredients
Cons
- Its protein blend lists sources by weight, but not how much of each
- Protein per calorie is mid-pack (17.6 g per 100 calories)
What stands out
- Vega has renamed this product Protein + Recovery. NSF lists both names, so the certification carried over.
- Pea, pumpkin seed and sunflower seed protein make up the blend.
- A strong fit for athletes in tested sports who want a flavored plant powder.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Vanilla · 1.83 lb. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
13/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $2.23 for 30 g of protein ($0.0743 per gram: $44.99 ÷ (20.2 servings × 30 g)) maps to 13/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
25/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Public certification record. The reviewed product appears by name in a public record maintained by an independent certification program. Under the verification ladder, that earns 25 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 30% = 30.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
14/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 17.6 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 17.18–17.86 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 14/25.
4. Label Transparency
15/25 base pointsAt least one named blend does not state how much of each ingredient it contains.
The formula contains ten or fewer listed ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 15/25 × 20% = 12.0 points.
Weighted score
13.0 cost points + 30.0 third-party verification points + 14.0 protein points + 12.0 label points = 69.0, displayed as 69.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Amazon.com), one-time price $44.99, checked October 30, 2026. Amazon lists the tub as 28.8 oz (816 g); the label we scored declares 828 g and 20 servings. Both give 20 servings.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: NSF Certified for Sport lists “Vega Sport Premium Protein Vanilla” under Sequel Naturals ULC (Guideline 306), confirmed October 16, 2026. Informed Choice also lists Vega Performance Protein + Recovery.
Garden of Life SPORT Organic Plant-Based Protein
Bottom line. Organic, NSF Certified for Sport and listed by Informed Choice, with 30 g of protein per scoop. A long ingredient list with three undisclosed blends keeps its label score low.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Why it ranked here
Full marks for testing evidence, with two certifications (NSF Certified for Sport and Informed Choice), and a mid-field cost of $2.21 per 30 g of protein. Its label scores 9 of 25: 15 ingredients in three blends that don’t state how much of each is used. That label gap is what separates it from #3.
Pros
- Two certifications (NSF Certified for Sport and Informed Choice)
- 30 g of protein per scoop
- Competitive cost for a certified powder
Cons
- 15 ingredients, in three blends listed by weight but without amounts
- Includes a probiotic and a fruit “recovery blend” many buyers do not need
What stands out
- NSF lists it as “Organic Plant-Based Performance Protein Vanilla,” so a search for the retail name finds nothing.
- The NSF listing records a 42 g serving and 160 calories against the current label’s 45 g and 170, which suggests a reformulation the register has not caught up with.
- USDA Organic and Non-GMO Project Verified, both confirmed in the certifiers’ registers.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Vanilla · 1.88 lb. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
13/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $2.21 for 30 g of protein ($0.0737 per gram: $41.99 ÷ (19 servings × 30 g)) maps to 13/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
25/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Public certification record. The reviewed product appears by name in a public record maintained by an independent certification program. Under the verification ladder, that earns 25 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 30% = 30.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
14/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 17.6 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 17.18–17.86 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 14/25.
4. Label Transparency
9/25 base pointsAt least one named blend does not state how much of each ingredient it contains.
The formula lists more than ten ingredients, counting sub-ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 9/25 × 20% = 7.2 points.
Weighted score
13.0 cost points + 30.0 third-party verification points + 14.0 protein points + 7.2 label points = 64.2, displayed as 64.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Amazon.com), one-time price $41.99, checked October 30, 2026.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: NSF Certified for Sport lists “Organic Plant-Based Performance Protein Vanilla” under Garden of Life, LLC (Guideline 306), and Informed Choice lists garden-life/sport-organic-plant-based-protein; both confirmed October 16, 2026.
Optimum Nutrition Gold Standard 100% Plant
Bottom line. The plant version of the best-known whey brand: 24 g of protein per scoop, an Informed Choice listing and a low Amazon price. A creamer and three undisclosed blends hold back its label score.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Why it ranked here
Full marks for testing evidence (Informed Choice) and a below-median cost of $2.19 per 30 g of protein. It gives up points on label transparency (an oil creamer and three blends without amounts) and on protein per calorie (16.0 g per 100 calories).
Pros
- Public certification record (Informed Choice)
- Among the lower costs per 30 g of protein
- Sold and shipped by Amazon.com
Cons
- 15 ingredients, including an oil creamer
- Its blends list ingredients by weight, but not how much of each
- Lower protein per calorie (16.0 g per 100 calories), likely related to its added ingredients
What stands out
- Pea, fava bean and brown rice protein make up the blend.
- Informed Choice lists the US version of this product. Its page refuses automated reads, so we could not confirm the Creamy Vanilla flavor specifically; we credited it on the same basis as other product-level listings.
- Added in October 2026 when the plant comparison grew from 18 to 20 powders.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Creamy Vanilla · 1.63 lb. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
13/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $2.19 for 30 g of protein ($0.0730 per gram: $34.99 ÷ (20 servings × 24 g)) maps to 13/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
25/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Public certification record. The reviewed product appears by name in a public record maintained by an independent certification program. Under the verification ladder, that earns 25 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 30% = 30.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
12/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 16.0 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 15.82–16.50 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 12/25.
4. Label Transparency
9/25 base pointsAt least one named blend does not state how much of each ingredient it contains.
The formula lists more than ten ingredients, counting sub-ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 9/25 × 20% = 7.2 points.
Weighted score
13.0 cost points + 30.0 third-party verification points + 12.0 protein points + 7.2 label points = 62.2, displayed as 62.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Amazon.com), one-time price $34.99, checked October 30, 2026.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: Informed Choice lists optimum-nutrition/gold-standard-plant-protein-usa in its public register, confirmed October 16, 2026. Flavor-level coverage could not be read.
Garden of Life RAW Organic Protein
Bottom line. A certified organic blend of pea, sprouted grains and seeds, listed by Informed Choice. With 34 ingredients and undisclosed blends, it scores lowest on label transparency among the certified powders.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Why it ranked here
Full marks for testing evidence (Informed Choice). It gives up points on label transparency, with 34 ingredients and blends that don’t state how much of each is used (9 of 25), and on cost ($2.43 per 30 g of protein).
Pros
- Public certification record (Informed Choice)
- USDA Organic and Non-GMO Project Verified
Cons
- 34 ingredients, the second-longest list in the field
- Its blends list ingredients by weight, but not how much of each
- Middling cost per 30 g of protein
What stands out
- The Informed Choice certification dates from July 2016 and the tub has changed size since. We credited it because the register still lists the product.
- Includes a probiotic and an enzyme blend.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Vanilla · 20 servings. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
11/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $2.43 for 30 g of protein ($0.0811 per gram: $35.69 ÷ (20 servings × 22 g)) maps to 11/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
25/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Public certification record. The reviewed product appears by name in a public record maintained by an independent certification program. Under the verification ladder, that earns 25 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 30% = 30.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
13/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 16.9 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 16.50–17.18 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 13/25.
4. Label Transparency
9/25 base pointsAt least one named blend does not state how much of each ingredient it contains.
The formula lists more than ten ingredients, counting sub-ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 9/25 × 20% = 7.2 points.
Weighted score
11.0 cost points + 30.0 third-party verification points + 13.0 protein points + 7.2 label points = 61.2, displayed as 61.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Amazon.com), one-time price $35.69, checked October 30, 2026.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: Informed Choice lists garden-life/raw-organic-protein in its public register, confirmed October 16, 2026.
Legion Plant+
Bottom line. A pea and rice blend with a clear label and a published lot-specific lab report. Its cost per 30 g of protein is on the higher side.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Evidence: Public product-and-lot-specific report
Why it ranked here
Tied for the best label score below full marks (19 of 25, no undisclosed blends) and the fourth-highest protein per calorie (18.5 g per 100 calories). Its testing evidence is a published lot-specific lab report, which scores below ongoing certification (18 of 25), and its cost is on the high side at $2.81 per 30 g of protein.
Pros
- Public lot-specific lab report
- No undisclosed blends
- 24 g of protein per scoop
Cons
- Lab report evidence scores below ongoing certification
- Higher cost per 30 g of protein
What stands out
- Legion’s certificate of analysis names Plant+, lot C226155-03 (made 06/2026), and shows results from named laboratories, including Eurofins for heavy metals. The report does not name a flavor.
- Legion’s website (not the label) lists 17.6 g of pea protein and 6.4 g of rice protein per serving.
- Legion says Plant+ is certified by Labdoor. Labdoor’s public rankings listed only Legion Whey+ and Collagen+ when we checked in September, so that claim earns nothing here.
- Amazon sells the Vanilla flavor only in the 40-serving tub, so that is the size we priced.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Vanilla · 40 servings. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
8/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $2.81 for 30 g of protein ($0.0937 per gram: $89.99 ÷ (40 servings × 24 g)) maps to 8/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
18/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Product-specific laboratory report. A public report identifies the product and a specific lot and shows analytical results. Under the verification ladder, that earns 18 of 25 base points; it does not qualify for certification-level credit.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 18/25 × 30% = 21.6 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
15/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 18.5 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 17.86–18.54 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 15/25.
4. Label Transparency
19/25 base pointsThe panel does not hide ingredient amounts inside an undisclosed blend.
The formula lists more than ten ingredients, counting sub-ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 19/25 × 20% = 15.2 points.
Weighted score
8.0 cost points + 21.6 third-party verification points + 15.0 protein points + 15.2 label points = 59.8, displayed as 60.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Legion), one-time price $89.99, checked October 30, 2026. The 20-serving tub is not sold on Amazon; the Vanilla 40-serving tub is priced. Brand panel for Vanilla: 33.64 g scoop, 130 calories, 24 g protein.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: Legion’s public certificate of analysis for Plant+, lot C226155-03, manufacture date 06/2026, expiration 06/2028, with methods and results (arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, microbes, gluten, protein). The report does not name a flavor; under the published rule a product-and-lot report earns 18 points, and the flavor gap is disclosed.
Momentous Essential Plant-Based Protein
Bottom line. NSF Certified for Sport for this exact flavor and only ten ingredients. It ranks eighth because it is one of the more expensive powders per gram of protein.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Why it ranked here
Full marks for testing evidence, with an NSF Certified for Sport listing for this exact flavor, and only ten ingredients. Cost holds it back: at $3.41 per 30 g of protein it is the fourth most expensive powder in the field (4 of 25).
Pros
- NSF Certified for Sport, flavor-specific listing
- Ten ingredients
- Pea and rice for a complete amino acid profile
Cons
- Third-highest cost per 30 g of protein in the field
- Its spice blend lists ingredients by weight, but not how much of each
- 2 g of added sugar from cane sugar
What stands out
- NSF lists “Plant Protein – Vanilla Spice” under Momentous with a 30.6 g serving; the label says 30.5 g.
- Added in October 2026 when the plant comparison grew from 18 to 20 powders.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Vanilla Spice · 22 servings. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
4/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $3.41 for 30 g of protein ($0.1137 per gram: $49.99 ÷ (22 servings × 20 g)) maps to 4/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
25/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Public certification record. The reviewed product appears by name in a public record maintained by an independent certification program. Under the verification ladder, that earns 25 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 30% = 30.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
13/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 16.7 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 16.50–17.18 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 13/25.
4. Label Transparency
15/25 base pointsAt least one named blend does not state how much of each ingredient it contains.
The formula contains ten or fewer listed ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 15/25 × 20% = 12.0 points.
Weighted score
4.0 cost points + 30.0 third-party verification points + 13.0 protein points + 12.0 label points = 59.0, displayed as 59.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Momentous US), one-time price $49.99, checked October 30, 2026.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: NSF Certified for Sport lists “Plant Protein – Vanilla Spice” under Momentous, Park City, UT (Guideline 306), confirmed October 16, 2026.
Ora Organic So Lean & So Clean
Bottom line. The most thoroughly documented product in the field: an Informed Sport certificate, published batch certificates and five named laboratories. It is also one of the most expensive per gram of protein, which keeps it in the Fair band.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Why it ranked here
Full marks for testing evidence: an Informed Sport certificate, published batch certificates and five named laboratories. At $3.82 per 30 g of protein it is the second most expensive powder in the field (1 of 25 for cost), and 25 ingredients with a superfood and greens blend hold its label score to 9 of 25.
Pros
- Public certification record (Informed Sport)
- Published batch certificates and named laboratories
Cons
- Second-highest cost per 30 g of protein
- 25 ingredients in a superfood and greens blend
- Protein sources sit third on the label, behind flavor and sweetener
What stands out
- Informed Sport certified it on January 6, 2026.
- Ora names Eurofins, FSNS, QALITEX, Certified Labs and LGC as its testing laboratories.
- It lands almost exactly on our cost ceiling and earns 1 of 25 cost points, which is the model working as designed.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Vanilla · 1.36 lb. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
1/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $3.82 for 30 g of protein ($0.1273 per gram: $58.33 ÷ (19.94 servings × 23 g)) maps to 1/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
25/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Public certification record. The reviewed product appears by name in a public record maintained by an independent certification program. Under the verification ladder, that earns 25 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 30% = 30.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
14/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 17.7 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 17.18–17.86 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 14/25.
4. Label Transparency
9/25 base pointsAt least one named blend does not state how much of each ingredient it contains.
The formula lists more than ten ingredients, counting sub-ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 9/25 × 20% = 7.2 points.
Weighted score
1.0 cost points + 30.0 third-party verification points + 14.0 protein points + 7.2 label points = 52.2, displayed as 52.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Ora Organic), one-time price $58.33, checked October 30, 2026.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: Informed Sport lists ora/so-lean-so-clean-plant-based-superfood-protein in its public register, confirmed October 16, 2026.
Sunwarrior Warrior Blend
Bottom line. Strong protein per calorie for a flavored blend and a named testing laboratory. It ranks tenth because no certification register lists it.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Evidence: Manufacturer testing statement; no public product-level record
Why it ranked here
The second-highest protein per calorie in the field (18.9 g per 100 calories) and a fairly clear label (15 of 25). The brand names its heavy-metal testing laboratory, but no certification register lists this product, so it earns 10 of 25 for testing evidence.
Pros
- Good protein per calorie (18.9 g per 100 calories)
- Eight ingredients
- Names its heavy-metal testing laboratory
Cons
- No public product-level testing record
- Its protein blend lists sources by weight, but not how much of each
What stands out
- Sunwarrior names ARL Bio Pharma for heavy-metal testing, which most brands in this field do not do.
- Informed Choice certifies Sunwarrior’s Active line, not Warrior Blend.
- Amazon sells a 32-serving vanilla tub; the label we scored is the 750 g, 30-serving tub. A newer formula on some listings (25 g scoop, 18 g protein, 100 calories) gives the same total of 51.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Vanilla · 32 servings. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
11/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $2.48 for 30 g of protein ($0.0827 per gram: $44.97 ÷ (32 servings × 17 g)) maps to 11/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
10/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Manufacturer testing statement. The company states that testing occurs, but no public product-level record was available. Under the verification ladder, that earns 10 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 10/25 × 30% = 12.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
16/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 18.9 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 18.54–19.22 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 16/25.
4. Label Transparency
15/25 base pointsAt least one named blend does not state how much of each ingredient it contains.
The formula contains ten or fewer listed ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 15/25 × 20% = 12.0 points.
Weighted score
11.0 cost points + 12.0 third-party verification points + 16.0 protein points + 12.0 label points = 51.0, displayed as 51.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Sunwarrior), one-time price $44.97, checked October 30, 2026. Amazon sells the vanilla tub as 32 servings; net weight not confirmed, so 32 × 25 g is assumed.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: The brand names ARL Bio Pharma for heavy-metal testing but publishes no product-level report, and no certification register lists Warrior Blend (NSF, Informed Sport and Informed Choice checked October 16, 2026).
Truvani Organic Plant Based Protein
Bottom line. Five ingredients, sweetened only with monk fruit, and a full score for label transparency. A brand testing claim with no named laboratory and a high cost per gram keep it in the Fair band.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Evidence: Manufacturer testing statement; no public product-level record
Why it ranked here
Full marks for label transparency: five ingredients, no blends. It gives up points on testing evidence (a brand claim with no named laboratory, 10 of 25) and on cost: at $3.25 per 30 g of protein it is the fifth most expensive powder in the field.
Pros
- Five ingredients, no blends
- Full score for label transparency
- USDA Organic
Cons
- Testing claimed but no public product-level record
- Higher cost per 30 g of protein
What stands out
- Truvani appears in a Clean Label Project screening study, which is a test, not a certification, and earns nothing here.
- Amazon’s 20-serving listing is sold only by a Whole Foods store, so we priced the 18-serving tub sold by Truvani. Its 18 × 29 g servings come to 522 g against a declared 536 g, a 2.6% gap we disclose.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Vanilla · 18 servings. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
5/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $3.25 for 30 g of protein ($0.1082 per gram: $39.99 ÷ (18.48 servings × 20 g)) maps to 5/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
10/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Manufacturer testing statement. The company states that testing occurs, but no public product-level record was available. Under the verification ladder, that earns 10 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 10/25 × 30% = 12.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
11/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 15.4 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 15.14–15.82 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 11/25.
4. Label Transparency
25/25 base pointsThe panel does not hide ingredient amounts inside an undisclosed blend.
The formula contains ten or fewer listed ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 20% = 20.0 points.
Weighted score
5.0 cost points + 12.0 third-party verification points + 11.0 protein points + 20.0 label points = 48.0, displayed as 48.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Truvani), one-time price $39.99, checked October 30, 2026. 18-serving tub (18.9 oz, 536 g) priced; servings calculated as 536 g ÷ 29 g.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: The brand says the product is tested but names no laboratory and publishes no product-level report; no certification register lists it (checked October 16, 2026).
PlantFusion Complete Protein
Bottom line. A reasonably priced blend with good protein per calorie.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Evidence: Manufacturer testing statement; no public product-level record
Why it ranked here
A below-median cost ($2.37 per 30 g of protein) and good protein per calorie (17.5 g per 100 calories). It gives up points on label transparency, because its protein blend doesn’t state how much of each source is used (9 of 25), and on testing evidence, where the brand’s claim has no public product-level record (10 of 25).
Pros
- Below-median cost per 30 g of protein
- Good protein per calorie (17.5 g per 100 calories)
Cons
- Its protein blend lists sources by weight, but not how much of each
- Testing claimed but no public product-level record
What stands out
- This protein blend has added L-isoleucine, L-leucine, L-valine and L-glutamine, listed second through fifth.
- PlantFusion is an Informed Choice brand, but the register lists a different PlantFusion product, not this one.
- Sold on Amazon by Complete Nourishment, the company that owns PlantFusion.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Creamy Vanilla Bean · 2 lb. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
12/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $2.37 for 30 g of protein ($0.0790 per gram: $49.85 ÷ (30 servings × 21 g)) maps to 12/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
10/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Manufacturer testing statement. The company states that testing occurs, but no public product-level record was available. Under the verification ladder, that earns 10 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 10/25 × 30% = 12.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
14/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 17.5 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 17.18–17.86 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 14/25.
4. Label Transparency
9/25 base pointsAt least one named blend does not state how much of each ingredient it contains.
The formula lists more than ten ingredients, counting sub-ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 9/25 × 20% = 7.2 points.
Weighted score
12.0 cost points + 12.0 third-party verification points + 14.0 protein points + 7.2 label points = 45.2, displayed as 45.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Complete Nourishment, the company that owns PlantFusion), one-time price $49.85, checked October 30, 2026.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: The brand confirms third-party testing without naming a laboratory; no certification register lists this product (checked October 16, 2026).
Ritual Essential Protein Daily Shake 18+
Bottom line. A clean, fully disclosed nine-ingredient label with added methionine to round out pea’s amino acids. It is the most expensive powder per gram of protein in the field, and its certification claim could not be verified.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Evidence: Manufacturer testing statement; no public product-level record
Why it ranked here
Full marks for label transparency, with nine fully disclosed ingredients. It is the most expensive powder in the field at $4.94 per 30 g of protein (0 of 25 for cost), and its Informed Sport claim could not be confirmed in the register, so it scores as a testing claim (10 of 25).
Pros
- Full score for label transparency
- Adds L-methionine, the amino acid pea runs low in
Cons
- Highest cost per 30 g of protein of all 20 products reviewed
- Certification claim could not be verified
What stands out
- Ritual says this product is Informed Sport certified. The register returned no Ritual products when we checked, so we treated it as a testing claim.
- The methionine is declared as a separate 400 mg line on the panel.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Vanilla · 1 lb. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
0/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $4.94 for 30 g of protein ($0.1647 per gram: $48.99 ÷ (14.87 servings × 20 g)) maps to 0/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
10/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Manufacturer testing statement. The company states that testing occurs, but no public product-level record was available. Under the verification ladder, that earns 10 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 10/25 × 30% = 12.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
13/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 16.7 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 16.50–17.18 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 13/25.
4. Label Transparency
25/25 base pointsThe panel does not hide ingredient amounts inside an undisclosed blend.
The formula contains ten or fewer listed ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 20% = 20.0 points.
Weighted score
0.0 cost points + 12.0 third-party verification points + 13.0 protein points + 20.0 label points = 45.0, displayed as 45.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Ritual), one-time price $48.99, checked October 30, 2026.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: The brand states Informed Sport certification, but no Ritual product appears in the Informed Sport register (checked October 16, 2026). It is scored as a testing claim without a public record.
Sprout Living Simple Pumpkin Seed Protein
Bottom line. A one-ingredient pumpkin seed protein for buyers who want to avoid pea. Pumpkin seed carries more fat than pea isolate, so it scores low on protein per calorie.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Evidence: Manufacturer testing statement; no public product-level record
Why it ranked here
Full marks for label transparency with a single ingredient, and the only single-ingredient powder here that is not pea. Pumpkin seed carries more fat than pea, so protein per calorie is low (13.3 g per 100 calories), and its cost is high ($3.18 per 30 g of protein).
Pros
- Single-ingredient formula
- Full score for label transparency
- Pea-free
Cons
- Low protein per calorie (13.3 g per 100 calories)
- Testing claimed but no named laboratory
What stands out
- The only single-ingredient powder here that is not pea.
- Its “3rd Party Tested, Every Ingredient & Batch” claim names no laboratory and links to no certificates.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Unflavored · 1 lb. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
5/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $3.18 for 30 g of protein ($0.1060 per gram: $29.66 ÷ (13.97 servings × 20 g)) maps to 5/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
10/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Manufacturer testing statement. The company states that testing occurs, but no public product-level record was available. Under the verification ladder, that earns 10 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 10/25 × 30% = 12.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
8/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 13.3 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 13.10–13.78 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 8/25.
4. Label Transparency
25/25 base pointsThe panel does not hide ingredient amounts inside an undisclosed blend.
The formula contains ten or fewer listed ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 20% = 20.0 points.
Weighted score
5.0 cost points + 12.0 third-party verification points + 8.0 protein points + 20.0 label points = 45.0, displayed as 45.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Sprout Living), one-time price $29.66, checked October 30, 2026.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: The brand claims third-party testing of every batch but names no laboratory and publishes no certificates; no certification register lists it (checked October 16, 2026).
KOS Organic Plant Protein
Bottom line. KOS runs a working lookup that returns third-party test results for your lot number, real product-level evidence. Low protein per calorie and the longest ingredient list in the field lower its overall score.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Evidence: Public product-and-lot-specific report
Why it ranked here
A working lot-number lookup gives it a product-level testing record (18 of 25). It gives up points on protein per calorie (12.5 g per 100 calories, third-lowest in the field), on a 38-ingredient label with blends that don’t state amounts, and on cost ($2.95 per 30 g of protein).
Pros
- Public lot-level test results
- Contains added vitamins and minerals
Cons
- 38 ingredients, the longest list in the field
- Low protein per calorie (12.5 g per 100 calories)
- 2 g of added sugar from coconut sugar
What stands out
- Enter a lot number or UPC on KOS’s quality page and it returns that lot’s test results.
- Several blends (protein, superfoods, vitamins and minerals, enzymes) show no amounts.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Vanilla · 28 servings. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
7/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $2.95 for 30 g of protein ($0.0983 per gram: $54.99 ÷ (28 servings × 20 g)) maps to 7/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
18/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Product-specific laboratory report. A public report identifies the product and a specific lot and shows analytical results. Under the verification ladder, that earns 18 of 25 base points; it does not qualify for certification-level credit.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 18/25 × 30% = 21.6 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
7/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 12.5 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 12.42–13.10 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 7/25.
4. Label Transparency
9/25 base pointsAt least one named blend does not state how much of each ingredient it contains.
The formula lists more than ten ingredients, counting sub-ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 9/25 × 20% = 7.2 points.
Weighted score
7.0 cost points + 21.6 third-party verification points + 7.0 protein points + 7.2 label points = 42.8, displayed as 43.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by KOS Naturals), one-time price $54.99, checked October 30, 2026. The Amazon title confirms the 28-serving vanilla tub we scored (1,036 g).
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: KOS publishes a lot-number and UPC lookup returning third-party test results for the product (kos.com/pages/quality-and-safety). It holds no sport certification.
Vega Protein + Supergreens
Bottom line. Inexpensive per gram of protein and fully disclosed, with spinach, kale and broccoli powders. It makes no testing claim at all, so it earns nothing for third-party verification.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Evidence: We didn’t find a certification listing or public lab report for this product (searched October 2026). Brands can send us evidence to review at hello@everablehealth.com.
Why it ranked here
Among the lowest costs in the field ($2.07 per 30 g of protein) and no undisclosed blends (19 of 25 for label). It makes no testing claim of any kind, so it earns nothing for testing evidence, which keeps it in the bottom half.
Pros
- Among the lowest costs per 30 g of protein
- No undisclosed blends
Cons
- No testing claim or public record of any kind
- 14 ingredients
What stands out
- Vega says Protein & Greens is now Protein + Supergreens; the tub sold today carries the older formula under the new name.
- Its only mark is Non-GMO Project Verified, which says nothing about purity testing.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Vanilla · 1.68 lb. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
14/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $2.07 for 30 g of protein ($0.0690 per gram: $34.99 ÷ (25.33 servings × 20 g)) maps to 14/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
0/25 base pointsEvidence classification: No qualifying public evidence located. No public certification record, product-specific report or manufacturer testing statement was located. Under the verification ladder, that earns 0 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 0/25 × 30% = 0.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
13/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 16.7 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 16.50–17.18 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 13/25.
4. Label Transparency
19/25 base pointsThe panel does not hide ingredient amounts inside an undisclosed blend.
The formula lists more than ten ingredients, counting sub-ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 19/25 × 20% = 15.2 points.
Weighted score
14.0 cost points + 0.0 third-party verification points + 13.0 protein points + 15.2 label points = 42.2, displayed as 42.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Amazon.com), one-time price $34.99, checked October 30, 2026.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: No certification listing, laboratory report or testing statement was found (NSF, Informed Sport and Informed Choice checked October 16, 2026).
Orgain Organic Protein Plant Based
Bottom line. One of the cheapest powders per gram of protein and sold by Amazon.com. Less than half of each 46 g scoop is protein, and its testing claim names no laboratory.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Evidence: Manufacturer testing statement; no public product-level record
Why it ranked here
Among the lowest costs in the field ($2.11 per 30 g of protein). It gives up points on protein per calorie (14.0 g per 100 calories), on a creamer base with blends that don’t state amounts (9 of 25), and on a testing claim with no named laboratory.
Pros
- Among the lowest costs per 30 g of protein
- Publishes a full amino acid profile
Cons
- Low protein per calorie (14.0 g per 100 calories)
- Includes a creamer base; its blends list ingredients by weight, but not how much of each
- Testing claimed but no public product-level record
What stands out
- Orgain’s own help center says its products are not NSF Certified for Sport.
- Informed Choice lists Orgain’s creatine, not this protein powder.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Vanilla Bean · 2.03 lb. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
14/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $2.11 for 30 g of protein ($0.0703 per gram: $29.59 ÷ (20 servings × 21 g)) maps to 14/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
10/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Manufacturer testing statement. The company states that testing occurs, but no public product-level record was available. Under the verification ladder, that earns 10 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 10/25 × 30% = 12.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
9/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 14.0 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 13.78–14.46 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 9/25.
4. Label Transparency
9/25 base pointsAt least one named blend does not state how much of each ingredient it contains.
The formula lists more than ten ingredients, counting sub-ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 9/25 × 20% = 7.2 points.
Weighted score
14.0 cost points + 12.0 third-party verification points + 9.0 protein points + 7.2 label points = 42.2, displayed as 42.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Amazon.com), one-time price $29.59, checked October 30, 2026.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: The brand states testing without naming a laboratory; Informed Choice lists only Orgain creatine, and Orgain states its products are not NSF Certified for Sport (checked October 16, 2026).
OWYN 100% Plant-Based Protein Powder
Bottom line. Made without the top nine allergens and priced low per gram of protein. Its serving size in grams is not declared anywhere, which limits what we can check.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Evidence: Manufacturer testing statement; no public product-level record
Why it ranked here
A low cost of $2.14 per 30 g of protein. It gives up points on protein per calorie (14.3 g per 100 calories), on label transparency (9 of 25; its serving size in grams is not declared anywhere), and on a testing claim with no public product-level record.
Pros
- Low cost per 30 g of protein
- Free of the top nine allergens
Cons
- Serving size in grams is not declared
- 4 g of added cane sugar
- Testing claimed but no public product-level record
What stands out
- OWYN does not appear in the Informed Sport register, despite that certification being attributed to it elsewhere.
- Amazon lists the tub as 2.1 lb; the brand lists 2.2 lb (998 g) and 28 servings. We used 28 servings.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Smooth Vanilla · 2.2 lb. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
13/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $2.14 for 30 g of protein ($0.0713 per gram: $39.98 ÷ (28 servings × 20 g)) maps to 13/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
10/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Manufacturer testing statement. The company states that testing occurs, but no public product-level record was available. Under the verification ladder, that earns 10 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 10/25 × 30% = 12.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
9/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 14.3 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 13.78–14.46 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 9/25.
4. Label Transparency
9/25 base pointsAt least one named blend does not state how much of each ingredient it contains.
The formula lists more than ten ingredients, counting sub-ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 9/25 × 20% = 7.2 points.
Weighted score
13.0 cost points + 12.0 third-party verification points + 9.0 protein points + 7.2 label points = 41.2, displayed as 41.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Amazon.com), one-time price $39.98, checked October 30, 2026. Amazon lists 2.1 lb; servings taken as 28 because the serving size in grams is never declared.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: The brand’s allergen-testing claim names no laboratory; no certification register lists OWYN (checked October 16, 2026).
PB2 Performance Peanut Protein
Bottom line. Six simple ingredients built on roasted peanuts, at a low price. Peanut brings fat with its protein, so it ties for the lowest protein per calorie in the field, and it makes no testing claim.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Evidence: We didn’t find a certification listing or public lab report for this product (searched October 2026). Brands can send us evidence to review at hello@everablehealth.com.
Why it ranked here
Full marks for label transparency (six ingredients) and the third-lowest cost in the field at $1.86 per 30 g of protein. Peanut brings fat with its protein, so it ties for the lowest protein per calorie (10.5 g per 100 calories), and it makes no testing claim, which earns nothing for testing evidence.
Pros
- Six ingredients, fully disclosed
- Low cost per 30 g of protein
Cons
- Tied for the lowest protein per calorie (10.5 g per 100 calories)
- No testing claim or public record
- Contains peanuts
What stands out
- Not suitable for anyone with a peanut allergy.
- The panel reads 0 g of added sugar while some listings include cane sugar; either way it is under our 5 g threshold.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Madagascar Vanilla · 2 lb. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
15/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $1.86 for 30 g of protein ($0.0620 per gram: $24.99 ÷ (20.16 servings × 20 g)) maps to 15/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
0/25 base pointsEvidence classification: No qualifying public evidence located. No public certification record, product-specific report or manufacturer testing statement was located. Under the verification ladder, that earns 0 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 0/25 × 30% = 0.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
4/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 10.5 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 10.38–11.06 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 4/25.
4. Label Transparency
25/25 base pointsThe panel does not hide ingredient amounts inside an undisclosed blend.
The formula contains ten or fewer listed ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 25/25 × 20% = 20.0 points.
Weighted score
15.0 cost points + 0.0 third-party verification points + 4.0 protein points + 20.0 label points = 39.0, displayed as 39.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by PB2 Foods), one-time price $24.99, checked October 16, 2026. On October 30, 2026 Amazon listed it as currently unavailable, so the last observed price is used until it returns.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: No certification listing, laboratory report or testing statement was found (checked October 16, 2026).
Four Sigmatic Organic Plant-Based Protein
Bottom line. A mushroom-and-superfood blend where half of each 40 g scoop is not protein. Low protein per calorie, four undisclosed blends and an unverified testing claim put it last.
Read the full reviewWhy it ranked here, pros and cons, and the evidence
Evidence: Manufacturer testing statement; no public product-level record
Why it ranked here
Tied for the lowest protein per calorie in the field (10.5 g per 100 calories): about half of each 40 g scoop is not protein. Four blends that don’t state amounts (9 of 25), an unverified testing claim (10 of 25) and a cost of $3.61 per 30 g of protein put it last.
Pros
- USDA Organic
- Brown rice, pea and hemp protein blend
Cons
- Tied for the lowest protein per calorie (10.5 g per 100 calories)
- Its four blends list ingredients by weight, but not how much of each
- Third most expensive per 30 g of protein ($3.61)
What stands out
- Its quality page says products are tested for heavy metals and other contaminants, with no laboratory named and nothing published.
- On Amazon it is now sold by Amazon.com. At our October 16 check it was sold only by a third-party seller at a lower price.
Score snapshot
Open the complete score audit trail
This audit applies to the reviewed version shown above: Sweet Vanilla · 15 servings. It should not be assumed to represent every flavor or package size in the product line.
1. Cost per 30 g of Protein
2/25 base pointsWhy this cost scale was chosen
Purpose. The cost pillar is meant to reward products that deliver more actual protein for each dollar, without letting tub size or scoop size distort the comparison.
Why these anchors. The scale uses fixed endpoints of $0.020 per gram for 25 points and $0.130 per gram for 0 points. The endpoints define the scoring standard rather than being reset to the cheapest and most expensive products in this review. That means a product’s score does not improve or decline simply because another product is added or removed.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives every equal change in cost per gram the same scoring effect. It avoids hidden breakpoints or subjective adjustments and makes the score reproducible from the published price and label data.
How to interpret it. Products near the lower-cost anchor earn more points because buyers receive more protein for the money. Products near the upper-cost anchor earn fewer points because buyers pay a larger premium for the same amount of protein. The scale measures value only; it does not assume the cheapest product is the best overall product.
Base score = round[25 × ($0.130 − cost per gram) ÷ $0.110], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. $3.61 for 30 g of protein ($0.1203 per gram: $36.09 ÷ (15 servings × 20 g)) maps to 2/25 under the published fixed cost scale.
2. Third-Party Verification
10/25 base pointsEvidence classification: Manufacturer testing statement. The company states that testing occurs, but no public product-level record was available. Under the verification ladder, that earns 10 of 25 base points.
This ladder measures how much product-level evidence a buyer can verify publicly. It does not judge the laboratory’s technical quality or prove that a higher-scoring product is safer.
Weighted contribution. 10/25 × 30% = 12.0 points.
3. Protein per 100 Calories
4/25 base pointsWhy this protein-density scale was chosen
Purpose. Protein per 100 Calories measures how efficiently a powder delivers protein within a fixed calorie budget. It helps buyers distinguish a protein-focused formula from one in which more calories come from fats, carbohydrates, creamers or flavor systems.
Why 25 grams per 100 calories is the top anchor. Protein supplies about four calories per gram, so 25 grams of protein represents approximately 100 protein calories. A product at this level is therefore at the practical ceiling of the measure: nearly all calories are attributable to protein. The model awards full credit at that point because additional density would offer little meaningful separation for this comparison.
Why 8 grams per 100 calories is the bottom anchor. Eight grams represents a formula in which a much smaller share of the calorie load comes from protein. It establishes a fixed lower boundary for this protein-powder scoring model. Products at or below that point receive no density credit because most calories are coming from something other than the protein being purchased.
Why a straight line. A linear scale gives each additional gram of protein per 100 calories the same incremental value between the two anchors. It is transparent, reproducible and does not change based on the products included in a particular review.
What the formula does. Subtracting 8 sets the lower anchor to zero. Dividing by 17 uses the distance between the two anchors, 25 minus 8. Multiplying by 25 converts that position to a 25-point scale. Rounding produces the published whole-number base score, and limiting the result to 0–25 prevents values outside the anchors from creating negative scores or extra credit.
Base score = round[25 × (protein grams per 100 calories − 8) ÷ 17], limited to 0–25.
Assigned score. 10.5 g protein per 100 calories falls within the highlighted range, 10.38–11.06 g per 100 cal, so the product receives 4/25.
4. Label Transparency
9/25 base pointsAt least one named blend does not state how much of each ingredient it contains.
The formula lists more than ten ingredients, counting sub-ingredients.
The serving contains no more than 5 grams of added sugar.
No artificial colors are listed.
Weighted contribution. 9/25 × 20% = 7.2 points.
Weighted score
2.0 cost points + 12.0 third-party verification points + 4.0 protein points + 7.2 label points = 25.2, displayed as 25.
Source record
- Price source: Amazon listing for the reviewed product (sold by Amazon.com), one-time price $36.09, checked October 30, 2026.
- Nutrition source: Product label used for calories, protein, scoop size, net weight and ingredients.
- Verification source: The brand states testing without naming a laboratory or publishing results; no certification register lists it (checked October 16, 2026).
Scope and selection rules
How the products were chosen, priced and checked
The field was built to compare recognizable plant-based protein powders across different price points, protein sources, formulation styles and evidence profiles. Every score is then tied to one documented brand, product, flavor and package size so the evaluation can be reproduced.
Why these 20 products?
The field was assembled from recognizable plant protein powders with current Amazon availability and enough public information to support a complete score. It intentionally spans budget and premium prices; pea, rice, pumpkin seed, peanut and multi-plant blends; products with and without public verification; and formulas ranging from single-ingredient unflavored powders to superfood blends. It began with 18 powders in September 2026; Momentous Essential Plant-Based Protein and Optimum Nutrition Gold Standard 100% Plant were added in October 2026 to bring it to 20, matching our whey comparison. Products without usable price, nutrition or ingredient records could not be scored consistently and were excluded. No soy protein powder is in the current field; we plan to cover soy in its own article.
Selection criteria
A product could enter the comparison when the review team could identify a specific plant protein product and assemble enough evidence to score it consistently.
- Purchasable product: A current retail or manufacturer listing was available for a specific flavor and package size.
- Complete nutrition record: Calories, protein per serving and serving count were available to calculate protein per calorie and normalized cost.
- Usable ingredient record: An ingredient panel was available to evaluate blend disclosure, ingredient count, added sugar and artificial colors.
- Plant-based formula: The product’s protein comes entirely from plants, and it is sold as a protein powder rather than a meal replacement or broader nutrition shake.
- Market variety: The final field included a mix of price levels, plant protein sources, label styles and verification profiles so readers could see how different buying choices perform under the same rules.
Important limitation. The report does not establish that these are the 20 highest-selling products or a statistically representative sample of the entire plant protein market. It is a deliberately varied comparison set built from products for which the required evidence could be assembled.
How was the flavor selected?
When an unflavored version was available and supported by a usable price, label and verification record, it was preferred because it reduces variation introduced by sweeteners, colors and flavor systems. When an unflavored version was not available or the evidence record was incomplete, the review used a documented flagship or broadly available flavor instead.
Why score only one flavor?
Flavors within the same product line can differ in calories, sweeteners, colors, serving size and ingredient count. Averaging multiple flavors would create a result that may not match any product a buyer can actually purchase. Scoring one documented flavor keeps the review specific and auditable.
How was the package size selected?
The reviewed size was the package for which a complete evidence set could be assembled: price, serving count, protein per serving, calories, ingredient panel and verification evidence when available. The exact size appears beside every product because a different container can change the cost calculation.
How were prices handled?
Products are priced at one retailer, Amazon, so the comparison is not distorted by which brands sell direct or how they set their own list prices. The scored price is the regular one-time price for the reviewed flavor, sold by Amazon.com or the brand’s own Amazon storefront where available; Subscribe & Save, coupons and deal prices are excluded. Four products are sold on Amazon in a different size from the label we scored (Legion Plant+, Sunwarrior Warrior Blend, Truvani and OWYN); their reviews say which size was priced and how servings were worked out. Servings are calculated as the label’s net weight divided by its scoop size where both are declared. Prices were checked October 30, 2026 and normalized to the cost of 30 grams of actual protein. Price and availability can change after the review date.
What if sources disagreed?
When retailer, brand or label records conflicted, the review used the evidence attached to the scored product and retained the disagreement in the research record rather than silently choosing the more favorable figure. A material unresolved issue should be disclosed in the product review or audit trail.
How the score helps you make a decision
What the score measures, and what it does not
Why these four factors?
Protein powders can also be compared by taste, texture, mixability, amino acid profile, sourcing claims, customer reviews and digestive tolerance. Those factors are either subjective, difficult to verify consistently from public records or dependent on the individual buyer.
This review focuses on four factors that can be applied to every product using documented evidence: third-party verification, cost per 30 g of protein, protein per calorie and label transparency. The goal is not to identify the best-tasting powder or the most popular brand. It is to compare purchasing evidence and formula characteristics that readers can inspect and reproduce.
The model is not trying to predict taste or identify a universal winner. It compares four factors that can be applied consistently across products. Together they show whether a powder offers a balanced buying case or asks the consumer to accept a specific compromise. Every formula and cut-off is published on How We Score. If you are still working out how much protein you need each day, start with our protein guide and calculator.
Third-Party Verification
Measures how much of the product’s testing story a buyer can check outside the manufacturer’s marketing. A higher score means a public certification record or product-specific laboratory report is available. A lower score means the buyer has less independent evidence and must rely more heavily on the company’s own claims. Third-party verification does not prove that one powder is safer or more effective.
Flavor matching for verification evidence. Certification records are credited only when the public program record matches the exact reviewed product and flavor, because certification listings can be flavor-specific. Public laboratory reports are evaluated at the product-and-lot level. A report for the same named product line and a specific lot may receive product-specific-report credit even when the tested flavor differs from the scored flavor, provided the flavor difference is disclosed in the ranking, product review, and audit trail. An off-flavor report does not establish results for the scored flavor and does not qualify for certification-level credit.
Cost per 30 g of Protein
Compares the cost of obtaining the same 30 grams of actual protein from every product. This avoids misleading comparisons between tubs with different sizes, scoop sizes and protein amounts. A higher score means more protein for each dollar spent; a lower score means the buyer is paying a larger premium for the same amount of protein.
Protein per 100 Calories
Measures how many grams of protein the powder delivers per 100 calories. A higher score means more of the calories come from protein, helping buyers increase protein intake without using as much of their daily calorie budget. A lower score means more calories come from carbohydrates, fats, flavor systems or other non-protein ingredients.
Label Transparency
Measures how clearly the formula tells buyers what they are purchasing. Products score higher when ingredient quantities are itemized, the ingredient list is concise, added sugar is limited and artificial colors are avoided. A lower score means the buyer has more unanswered questions, especially when blend ingredients are named but their proportions are hidden.
Final Thoughts
The plant powders that scored best were the plainest: one ingredient, a public certification record and a low cost per gram of protein. Most of the field added flavors, creamers, greens or superfood blends, which cost protein per calorie and made the label harder to read.
A lower ranking does not establish that a product is unsafe, ineffective or poor quality. It means the product presented a weaker overall buying case under this model, whether because no certification turned up in our search, a higher normalized cost, lower protein per calorie or less label transparency.
If you are still deciding between plant and whey, our pea and plant protein vs whey guide explains what actually differs. For how much protein you need each day, start with our protein guide and calculator.