Nature of Reviews

Every page on this site ranks something, and rankings are worth nothing if you cannot see how they were produced. This page describes exactly what goes into a NAD⁺ verdict, what is structurally incapable of influencing it, and how to read the partner labels. It sits alongside our disclosures and editorial policy.

1. What we score

Five inputs, applied identically to every provider, from the $29 patch to the $2,000 annual prepay:

• Evidence — what human trials show for that specific format. This is where NAD⁺ separates hardest: oral precursors have randomized trials behind them, and transdermal patches have no published human trial at all. A product does not inherit the evidence of a different delivery route.
• Price transparency — whether the cost appears before an intake form, and whether a headline rate is a monthly price or a year billed at once. Those are not the same number and we do not let them be compared as if they were.
• Value — cost per milligram, where a milligram figure exists. Most of this category will not publish one, and we say so on the page rather than quietly scoring around it.
• Ordering experience — what the intake actually asks, which states are excluded, and whether the path to NAD⁺ runs through a weight-loss funnel that was not built for you.
• Clinical support — whether a licensed clinician is involved beyond approving a form, and whether labs inform the dose.

The standard behind those inputs — primary sources, citations verified live, effect sizes rather than adjectives — is in our methodology.

2. The score cannot see who pays

This is a property of the code, not a promise about our character. The function that produces a provider’s score never reads its commercial status; that field is not among its inputs, and a test asserts it. No score on this site was typed in by hand.

You can check that claim against our own pages rather than taking it on trust:

• The NAD⁺ product we rate best on evidence is an oral precursor we earn nothing from, and we say so in the review. We turned down the program.
• One of our paying partners sells NAD⁺ we tell you not to buy from them right now, in their own review, because today they are a GLP-1 service rather than a NAD⁺ one.
• A product with a commission available to us is not recommended at all, because the format has no human evidence and the seller publishes no dose.

A verdict that only ever flattered the people paying us would not produce those three pages.

3. How partners appear

NAD Picks is reader-supported. Some providers we review are commercial partners, reached through the Katalys network: if you start care through our link we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you. Two consequences, both worth stating plainly:

• Commercial links are labeled where they appear, not only in a policy page you would have to go looking for.
• A partnership can affect the order things are listed in. It cannot affect the verdict, the score, or a safety statement. When a partner is shown first, that is placement. It is not a claim that they are better, and the review immediately below will tell you if they are not.

Our affiliate disclosure is computed from the links actually present on the page you are reading, rather than asserted site-wide. A page that earns nothing does not claim to.

4. Providers we earn nothing from

We cover products with no commercial relationship to us, and link to them directly. Some of those are among our strongest recommendations. Not being a partner neither helps nor hurts an assessment — but it does mean we had no reason to write about them except that they belong in the comparison, which is worth knowing when you read the verdict.

5. What we do not cover, and how fast it goes stale

We do not review every NAD⁺ seller in existence. Coverage follows what people are actually deciding between and where evidence exists to decide on. In a compounded market, prices, state availability and regulatory standing move without notice, and every price here was read off the seller’s own page on a stated date — not from a program description, which routinely disagrees with it. Check the current figure before you buy, and treat all of this as research rather than medical advice. If something here is out of date, tell us — we publish the correction.