Top 5 AG1 Alternatives in Canada (2026): Is AG1 Worth It?
Joe Clark | BSc Hons Sport Science
If you’re wondering whether AG1 is worth the money, and whether equally good or better Canadian alternatives exist, this comparison addresses both questions directly.
AG1 is the market leader in the greens powder category, having built its position through complex labelling and distinctive marketing claims such as “foundational nutrition”. However, with a price exceeding $130 per unit in Canada, it is reasonable to ask whether AG1 justifies its cost, or whether Canadian-made greens powders can match or exceed its quality while offering better value for money and supporting Canadian brands.
To answer this, I conducted a detailed, ingredient-by-ingredient analysis of AG1 alongside five leading Canadian greens powders. Each product was evaluated using objective, data-driven criteria covering formulation quality, transparency, testing, and value for money. The findings are summarised in a clear, easy-to-understand format. The full ingredient-level analysis is attached here for those who want to dig even deeper.
The brands analysed are:
- AG1
- SUBI
- Thrive Ultimate Greens
- Active Green Pro
- Genuine Health Greens+
- Nested Naturals
All products were evaluated using the categories below:
Section 1: Formulation Quality (50%)
- Number of Active Ingredients
- Active Ingredient Content
- Extract Content
- Ingredient Cost
- Non-Medicinal Ingredients
Section 2: Additional Considerations (50%)
Overall Results
Is AG1 Worth It?
Cost
Below is a cost comparison of the brands for background information. No score is assigned for cost, as differences in formulation make direct cost scoring inappropriate. Instead, score is assigned later in the value for money section based on the cost relative to calculated ingredient cost.
Cost per 10 g serving.
Below is the cost per 10 g of each product. 10 g was chosen as it is a common serving size. All the Canadian brands come in at well under half the price per serving of AG1. 
Cost per unit & calculated raw ingredient cost
Below is the cost per unit and the calculated raw ingredient cost for each product. While not exact, these figures are based on available wholesale pricing and provide a reasonable approximation. The pricing analysis and wholesale values are available here.
Note that this is strictly the raw ingredient cost: as discussed later in the value for money category, there are numerous other costs that the companies incur. 
Section 1: Formulation Quality
Number of Active Ingredients
In general, a higher number of active ingredients indicates greater nutrient diversity, which is desirable in a greens blend. However, many products inflate their ingredient counts by including numerous ingredients at negligible doses (label stuffing), making formulations appear more comprehensive than they functionally are. To avoid this, only ingredients dosed at more than 10 mg per serving are counted as active ingredients in this analysis. AG1 sets a strong benchmark in this category, with 44 unique ingredients dosed at >10 mg.
Vitamins and minerals are not counted as active ingredients. The rationale for this is discussed in the appendix, where I explain why the addition of synthetic vitamins and minerals offers limited benefit in greens powders, including AG1's formulation. Probiotics are only counted as a single active ingredient if the blend exceeds 10 billion CFU. This is also discussed in the appendix.
Thrive Ultimate Greens competes best with AG1 in this category, with 43 active ingredients >10 mg vs. 44 from AG1
Active Ingredient Content
Active ingredient % (functional mass) refers to the proportion of the product composed of active ingredients. Carriers, emulsifiers, and fillers reduce functional mass; therefore, a higher functional mass is preferred from a nutritional perspective.
AG1 has a respectable 87% functional mass, meaning only 13% of its ingredient weight is carriers, emulsifiers, and fillers.
Both SUBI and Nested Naturals exceed AG1 in this category, with 100% active ingredients. Meanwhile Thrive has a relatively similar functional mass, closely followed by Genuine Health Greens+.
Active Green Pro performs particularly poorly in this category. Just 16% of the product is made up of active ingredients, with roughly 76% consisting of pea starch and soy lecithin. This is not a minor formulation decision for palatability or processing. It represents a formulation strategy that adds bulk at the expense of functional value and takes advantage of consumers who rely on the label rather than the numbers. It is essentially not a nutritional greens blend; it is predominantly a tub of pea starch.
Extract Content
Extract ingredients are processed to concentrate specific compounds, allowing them to deliver more nutrition per gram than whole-food ingredients. In many cases, extracts provide greater nutritional density than whole ingredients and are essential for some high-bulk ingredients to make a meaningful nutritional contribution. While a high extract mass is not required for a product to be high quality, the inclusion of extracts generally reflects the use of more potent, higher-quality inputs.
Unlike total functional mass, a low or zero extract mass is not indicative of a poor-quality product. For this reason, products with 0% extract mass were still assigned 3 points, so they are not penalised too heavily.
AG1 does particularly well in this category, with 12.6% of the ingredient base consisting of extracts. Below is the extract content of the other brands.
Ingredient Cost
Raw ingredient cost per 100 g is included because, in general, higher-quality ingredients tend to cost more. This is not always the case, as many vegetables are both highly nutritious and inexpensive. However, formulations made up almost entirely of very low-cost ingredients are more likely to reflect lower overall quality. This metric helps highlight that difference. Wholesale pricing was researched for every ingredient in each product. While these figures are not exact, they are realistic.
AG1 has a cost of ingredients of approximately $4.00 per 100 g. Below is how the other brands compare. 
Non-Medicinal Ingredients
This section evaluates the quality of non-medicinal ingredients used for flavour, texture, and stability. Products score higher when these ingredients are minimal and naturally derived, and score lower when they rely on artificial flavours, added sugars, or refined fillers such as maltodextrin.
A penalty is applied to both AG1 and Nested Naturals. AG1 includes silicon dioxide, a synthetic anti-caking agent, while Nested Naturals uses maltodextrin, a low-cost bulking agent.
Section 1 results
Below are the Section 1 results, based on the five metrics above, contributing 50% of the overall score.
Section 1 focuses solely on formulation-related metrics. While this provides useful insight into how each greens powder compares compositionally, it represents only half of the overall evaluation. Other important factors, including third-party testing, ingredient transparency, taste, and pricing relative to raw ingredient cost, are assessed in Section 2, which makes up the remaining 50%.
AG1 performs very well in Section 1, with a formulation quality score of 83%, followed by Thrive (76%) and SUBI (74%). A strong Section 1 score alone does not automatically make a product the best choice. That said, very low scores (<60%) in this section indicate poor formulation and are likely a poor choice for most people.
While a higher quality score may indicate greater nutritional density, the difference between a 70% and 90% score has limited real-world significance. In practice, using a larger serving of a well-formulated, higher-value product can often exceed the nutritional contribution of premium-priced products in a more cost-effective way.
Greens blends are dehydrated foods, so a larger serving simply means more food and therefore more nutrients. Much like eating one apple versus a quarter of an apple, the same principle applies. A 10 g serving can only deliver so much, whereas a 15 to 20 g serving of a well-designed product may provide more total nutrition at a fraction of the cost of so-called premium brands. This is discussed further in the appendix.
Finally, if a product does not taste good, it is unlikely to be used consistently, which undermines its purpose. Likewise, without third-party testing for contaminants or pesticides, potential safety concerns may outweigh any benefit. These factors are assessed in Section 2.
Section 2: Additional Considerations
This section makes up the remaining 50% of the score and includes: third-party testing, ingredient disclosure, taste, and the product cost vs. the raw ingredient cost (pricing markup).
Third-Party Testing
This is an important category for many consumers, and rightly so, as it underpins product safety. I contacted every brand to ask what they test for and to request copies of their testing results (COAs). The results of this outreach are outlined below.
Full third-party testing is defined here as testing for heavy metals, contaminants, and pesticides. If any one of these is missing, a score penalty of 3 points is applied. If a company does not share its testing results, a 5-point penalty is applied, as without transparency consumers cannot place trust in the outcome of the testing. Products that conduct no third-party testing receive a score of 0.
AG1 conducts full third-party testing and discloses the results. The only other company to do this is Thrive. SUBI and Nested Naturals both share their results, but do not test for pesticides. Genuine Health does not disclose their results. Active Green Pro does not conduct third-party testing on their products. 
Ingredient Transparency
Ingredient transparency refers to whether a brand discloses the dosage of each ingredient on the label or hides this information behind a proprietary blend. Proprietary blends are problematic because they prevent consumers from knowing exactly what they are consuming, information they have a reasonable right to access.
Brands often argue that proprietary blends protect formulations, but in practice this justification is weak. Greens formulas are difficult to replicate regardless, due to differences in sourcing, processing, and cost. More commonly, proprietary blends allow lower-cost bulk ingredients to make up a greater proportion of a formula without disclosure.
A 5-point penalty is applied for the use of proprietary blends.
AG1 is clever in the use of a proprietary blend, as it creates an allure around the product making it easier to justify the $130+ price tag. It also makes it harder for people like me to dissect the formula. That said, I was still able to calculate the dosing of each ingredient to a fair accuracy for this analysis, as by law each ingredient must be listed by weight.
Value for Money
This category assesses the pricing markup of each product, which refers to how many times higher the retail price is relative to the raw ingredient cost. This metric is a strong indicator of value for money, as it shows how much consumers are paying beyond the underlying ingredient value. For example, a 5× markup means the retail price is five times the estimated raw ingredient cost.
Ingredient costs were calculated using wholesale pricing for every ingredient in each blend. While these figures are educated estimates, as each company will have different suppliers and pricing agreements, they provide a fair and realistic representation.
AG1 is an expensive product, and most consumers searching for alternatives are doing so because of its high price. However, AG1’s marketing is effective at positioning the product as good value for money. The only way I could create real transparency here was to calculate what it actually costs to produce each product, allowing consumers to decide for themselves whether that value claim holds up.
It is important to understand that these figures do not represent the final costs incurred by each company. Packaging, manufacturing, shipping, storage, and other operational expenses must also be considered, along with marketing and sales costs.
To provide some context, our margin above raw ingredient cost in this analysis is approximately 6.0×. After manufacturing, this falls to around 3.0×. Once shipping and sales costs are included, it drops below 2.5×, before accounting for broader operational and marketing expenses. This is included to give context around what constitutes a reasonable markup.
Markups above 7.0× begin to move into excessive territory. Consumers should be cautious of greens brands that invest heavily in marketing, as this cost is ultimately passed on to the customer rather than reflected in the product itself.
This category exists primarily to assess whether AG1’s premium price is justified by its formulation, and how the other brands compare. As the data show, paying over $100 for a greens powder is difficult to justify based on ingredient value alone. This analysis helps answer the question, “Is AG1 worth it?” From a value perspective, the answer is no.
Taste
Taste is inherently subjective, but it is one of the most important factors in a greens blend, as it directly affects consistency of use. If a product does not taste good, it is unlikely to be used regularly. While taste introduces subjectivity, it reflects real-world consumer experience. To limit bias, both testers evaluated all products under the same blind conditions. Full taste notes for each product are available in the spreadsheet.
Section 2 results
Below are the Section 2 results, based on the four metrics reviewed above: third-party testing, ingredient transparency, value for money, and taste. Together, section 2 contributes 50% of the overall score.
Although AG1 received full marks for third-party testing, its overall score in this section was 55%, driven by poor value for money, a low taste score, and limited transparency around ingredient dosing.
Overall Results
Here is the final score for each product based on the nine categories analysed above.
AG1 achieves a respectable overall score of 72% based on the criteria assessed. The product performs particularly well on formulation quality metrics, including total active ingredients, active ingredient content, extract content, and ingredient cost, but scores less strongly on the additional considerations of ingredient transparency, value for money, and taste.
🥇 Thrive Ultimate Greens takes first place as the best AG1 alternative in Canada and the best overall greens powder in Canada in 2026. Performing well in all categories, with over 40 diverse ingredients, solid dosing, extracts, quality non-medicinals, transparent and rigorous third-party testing, good value for money, and standing head and shoulders above the rest in taste. Furthermore, Thrive is Canadian-made. As we launched Thrive Ultimate Greens recently in 2024, I was able to conduct market research similar to the above on all other brands before designing Ultimate Greens.
🥈SUBI takes second place as the best AG1 alternative. It offers strong value for money, well-chosen ingredients, good taste, shared third-party testing, and overall high ingredient quality. The factors placing SUBI second are its use of 20 active ingredients compared with 43 in Thrive and 44 in AG1, its reliance on a proprietary blend similar to AG1 which limits dosage transparency, and the absence of pesticide testing. Despite this, SUBI remains a solid choice and, like Thrive, is Canadian-made.
🥉 AG1 takes third place. Before conducting this analysis, I, like many others, was unsure whether AG1 was largely marketing-driven or whether its ingredients genuinely justified the price. The conclusion is that the formulation itself is solid, and AG1 scored highest for formulation quality. However, the product costs over $130 CAD for approximately $15.61 worth of ingredients. By comparison, both SUBI and Thrive contain over $10.00 worth of ingredients while costing roughly one third of AG1 per serving. AG1 invests heavily in marketing, and that cost is ultimately passed on to the consumer. If you are wondering whether AG1 is truly exceptional, or whether it is worth the price tag, the answer to both is no. That said, it remains a well-designed product.
Is AG1 Worth It?
The question of whether AG1 is worth it has two parts. Is it worth taking? Yes, but the same is true of several other brands. Is it worth it from a value perspective? No. Using a larger serving of a high-quality, better-value product such as Thrive or SUBI can exceed AG1’s nutritional contribution at a significantly lower cost. For more information, see the appendix below, which discusses the following:
- Why Larger Servings of Other Greens Can Provide More Nutrition Than AG1
- Is AG1’s probiotic dose actually meaningful?
- Do added vitamins and minerals improve greens powders?
- Why probiotics and synthetic vitamins were not scored in this analysis
About the Author:
Joe is a certified personal trainer, strength and conditioning coach, and nutrition coach. He holds a Bachelor of Science with Honours in Sport and Exercise Science, graduating with First Class standing. During his studies, Joe focused on human physiology and performance, and he applies this knowledge of exercise science to his work with Thrive. He is the co-founder of Thrive Protein, a Canadian family-run supplement company focused on clean, scientifically backed nutrition products — including protein powders, greens, and electrolytes.
Appendix: What Was Not Scored and Why + More Info on AG1
Article Background & Methodology
This article is a follow-up to my "Top 8 Greens Powders analysis". The key difference is that all products assessed here are Canadian-made, and results are interpreted relative to AG1 as the reference product, for readers seeking an AG1 alternative. All of the data used to create this article is available in this datasheet, including the exact formulations of each product and the full scoring framework, which together outline the methodology underpinning the analysis.
Why larger servings of other greens can provide more nutrition than AG1
Greens powders are dehydrated foods, which means total nutrient intake is largely determined by how much plant material is consumed rather than how premium the branding or price appears. A larger serving simply provides more food, and therefore more nutrients. This places a natural limit on what small servings can realistically deliver.
Most greens powders are produced by removing roughly 90% of the original water content. In practical terms, a 10 g serving represents around 100 g of fresh plant material. While this contributes useful nutrients, it is still a relatively small amount of food. By contrast, increasing the serving size to 15 to 20 g meaningfully increases total nutrient intake, in the same way that eating a larger portion of whole foods provides more nutrition.
For this reason, increasing the serving size of a well-formulated, food-based greens blend is often a more effective and cost-efficient way to boost overall nutrient intake than paying a premium for marginally denser formulations such as AG1. When value is considered, two scoops of a high-quality, lower-cost product can easily surpass the nutritional contribution of a single scoop of a premium-priced blend.
This is not a recommendation to consume excessively large amounts of greens powder. Some products contain concentrated extracts, herbs, or other components with defined upper intake limits that restrict how much can be used safely. However, whole-food–focused blends (that is, those without added vitamins and minerals), such as Thrive and SUBI, have higher practical usage limits. This allows greater flexibility in serving size and greater nutrient consumption.
Do added vitamins and minerals improve greens powders?
Greens powders function best as food-based products rather than as disguised multivitamins. Once synthetic vitamins and minerals are added at supplemental doses, the product is no longer flexible as a food and instead becomes limited by upper intake thresholds. This reduces the ability to use larger servings and removes one of the key advantages of a whole-food greens blend.
From a formulation perspective, synthetic vitamins and minerals are extremely inexpensive. Their inclusion often makes a label appear more comprehensive without materially improving ingredient quality or production cost. In many cases, they serve more as visual reinforcement of “completeness” than as a meaningful contributor to nutritional value. Bioavailability is also inconsistent, as many synthetic forms are less reliably absorbed than food-derived equivalents, particularly when consumed without the appropriate cofactors.
For individuals eating a reasonably balanced diet, broad micronutrient fortification via synthetic vitamins is rarely necessary, especially alongside a greens powder. Where deficiencies exist, targeted supplementation is more effective than including small, non-individualised doses within a blended product. In practice, added vitamins and minerals tend to enhance label appeal more than functional outcomes. A food-first greens formulation is better focused on whole ingredients, appropriate serving flexibility, and compounds that are genuinely difficult to obtain through diet alone.
Is AG1’s probiotic dose actually meaningful?
Probiotics were not scored in this analysis for two main reasons. First, most greens powders include probiotics at doses that are unlikely to be effective. Second, for the majority of people, probiotic supplementation is not necessary in the first place.
Although probiotics are frequently added to greens powders, they are often included at levels well below what is typically required to produce a measurable effect. Meaningful probiotic supplementation generally involves daily intakes of around 10 billion CFU or more, delivered consistently and in formulations designed to survive digestion. In many greens products, probiotics fall short of this threshold and function more as a marketing feature than a functional component.
AG1 is an exception in this category, providing 31 billion CFU per serving, which sits comfortably within a range commonly considered relevant for probiotic supplementation. By comparison, products such as Magic Scoop, at 7 billion CFU, sit near the lower end of effectiveness, while others, such as Bloom, include amounts so small that a measurable benefit is unlikely.
That said, a meaningful probiotic dose does not automatically make a product better. Most individuals do not require probiotic supplementation, and gastrointestinal issues are more often driven by dietary factors rather than a lack of probiotic organisms. In these cases, improving overall diet quality is likely to be more effective than adding probiotics through a greens powder.
Why probiotics and synthetic vitamins were not scored in this analysis
Probiotics and synthetic vitamins were not scored because they are either commonly underdosed or unnecessary for most people. Probiotics are often included at levels unlikely to provide meaningful benefit, while synthetic vitamins restrict serving flexibility and primarily inflate labels rather than improve product quality.