Overall Results

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 (Additional Considerations), which makes up the remaining 50%.

A strong Section 1 score does not automatically mean a product is the best choice. However, very low scores 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 practical significance. In many cases, using a larger serving of a well-formulated, higher-value product can far 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 overall nutrition at a fraction of the cost of so-called premium brands. This is discussed in more detail in the appendix.

Finally, if a product does not taste good, it is unlikely to be used consistently, undermining 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% 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 reached out to every brand to ask what they test for and to request copies of their testing results (COAs). Below are the results of this outreach.

Full third-party testing is defined here as testing for heavy metals, contaminants, and pesticides. If 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 the consumer cannot place trust in the outcome of the testing. Products that conduct no third-party testing receive a score of 0.

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 claim proprietary blends protect formulations, but in practice this argument is weak. Complex blends are difficult to replicate due to differences in sourcing, processing, and costs. More commonly, proprietary blends allow lower-cost bulk ingredients to be weighted more heavily without disclosure.

A -5 penalty is applied here for the use of proprietary blends

Value for money

Pricing markup refers to how many times higher the sale price is relative to the raw ingredient cost. This metric is a strong indicator of value for money, as it highlights how much consumers are paying beyond the underlying ingredient value. For example, 5x would mean the cost of the product is 5 times that of the 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 are generally a fair and accurate representation.

It is important to understand that these figures do not represent the final costs incurred by each company, as packaging, shipping, storage, and other operational expenses must also be considered, and then there is marketing spend and other sales costs. 

To give some insight, our margin above the ingredient cost here is 6.0x, however, after manufacture is complete our margin is 3.0x. After shipping and sales costs, this drops to under 2.5x, and that is before all operational costs of the business and marketing. I am including this to give some insight into what is a fair markup, and what is not.

Anything over 7.0x is bordering on exorbitant. Be cautious of greens companies that invest heavily in marketing spend, as this is money you are paying for rather than for the product itself.

This analysis category was created primarily to show consumers that the premium price tags of brands such as AG1 and Magic Scoop are not proportional to the ingredients provided. Hopefully, it is clear that there is little justification for paying over $100 for a greens powder, while also highlighting the products with lower ingredient costs and very small serving sizes that contribute to hidden inflation and provide the consumer with little value for money.

Taste

Taste is inherently subjective; however, it is one of the most important factors in a greens blend, as it directly influences consumption consistency. If a product does not taste good, it is unlikely to be used consistently. While taste introduces subjectivity, it reflects real-world consumer experience. To limit bias, both testers evaluated all products under the same blind conditions. See the spreadsheet for the full taste notes on each product. 

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.

Overall results

Here is the final score for each product based on the nine categories analysed above.

🥇 Thrive Ultimate Greens takes first place as the best overall greens powder in Canada in 2026. We are at somewhat of an advantage, as we only launched in 2024, which meant I was able to conduct market research like the above on all other brands before designing Ultimate Greens. 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.

🥈SUBI takes second place. SUBI offers excellent value for money, well-chosen ingredients, good taste, shares their third-party testing, and demonstrates excellent ingredient quality. The factors placing SUBI in second are its use of 20 active ingredients versus 43 in Thrive, the use of a proprietary blend which makes exact dosages harder to determine, and the absence of pesticide testing. However, SUBI still remained a good choice, and like Thrive, is Canadian Made.

🥉AG1 takes third place. Before conducting this analysis, I, like many others, did not know whether AG1 was largely hype or whether the ingredients truly justified the price tag. The answer is that the ingredients are solid, and AG1 scored highest on formulation quality. However, the product costs over $130 CDN for approximately $15.61 worth of ingredients. In comparison, both SUBI and Thrive contain over $10.00 worth of ingredients while costing 1/3 of AG1 per serving. AG1 invests heavily in marketing, and this cost is ultimately passed on to the consumer. If you are wondering whether AG1 is really that special, or whether it is worth the price tag, the answer to both is no. That said, it is still a very well-designed product. Two additional factors contributing to AG1 placing third are its mediocre taste and the lack of disclosed ingredient dosages. 

Products to avoid

I do not normally write things like this, but I feel an obligation to be transparent in this case. Do not buy Active Green Pro or Bloom. Here is why.

❌ Active Green Pro. I was shocked to discover that approximately 76% of Active Green Pro is made up of fillers (pea starch and soy lecithin), with only 16% of the product providing active ingredients, and even those are underdosed. It appears to be a misleading product attempting to capitalise on consumers searching for AG1. Even the branding is very similar, from the logo to the name Active Green Pro versus Athletic Greens.

❌ Bloom. Bloom should be avoided for the following reasons. It is sold in a 137 g tub (less than 15 servings), meaning you are paying over 12 times the raw ingredient cost per unit, which exceeds even AG1. Furthermore, the non-medicinal ingredient quality is very poor and the company conducts no third-party testing. Bloom performed poorly on almost all categories. Like Active Green Pro, Bloom appears to take advantage of consumers rather than genuinely supporting health and wellness.

Summary

For a detailed overall summary of every category, view the accompanying spreadsheet. I also include further information on many aspects of this analysis in the appendix below. 

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.

Check out our supplement comparison articles:

• 8 Best Electrolyte Powders in Canada According to Science
• Best Creatine in Canada: Top 8 Brands Comparison Guide
• The Best Vegan Protein Powders in Canada
• Best Alternatives to Skratch, Maurten & Tailwind in Canada

Appendix

Accompanying Data Sheet

Here is the accompanying data sheet.

• Tab one, “Summary,” contains an overview of all of the results in one place.
• Tab two, “Scoring Key,” explains the scoring for each category.
• Tab three, “Ingredient Cost Masterlist,” shows the predicted wholesale pricing of all ingredients across all products.
• The remaining tabs are brand-specific and show all information for each product. These tabs contain detail that exceeds what is presented in the blog above.
  

Using a larger serving of food-based greens blends to exceed the nutrients of 'premium' blends

Greens powders are dehydrated foods. As a result, total nutritional intake is largely a function of how much food is consumed, not how premium the branding or pricing is. A larger serving simply delivers more plant material and therefore more nutrients. This creates a practical ceiling on what small servings can provide.

As a rule of thumb, greens are dehydrated with around 90% of their original water removed. This means a 10 g serving provides roughly 100 g of whole food equivalents. While helpful, this is not a large amount. A 10 g scoop can only contribute so much, whereas a 15 to 20 g serving of a well-designed, food-based greens blend can deliver substantially more overall nutrition. The logic is the same as with whole foods: consuming more food provides more nutrients. Scaling the serving size of a food-based greens blend to 2-3 scoops is a far more effective and cost-efficient way to increase nutritional intake than paying a premium for marginally denser formulations such as AG1 or Magic Scoop. 

To be clear, this is not a recommendation to consume excessively large amounts of greens powder. Some blends contain herbs, extracts, or other components with defined maximum intakes that can limit how much can be used safely. However, whole-food–based blends with high upper usage limits, such as Thrive and SUBI, allow for greater flexibility in serving size without these constraints.

Inclusion of synthetic vitamins and minerals

Greens powders are best maintained as food-based products rather than multivitamins. Once synthetic vitamins and minerals are added at supplemental doses, the product ceases to function as a whole-food product and becomes constrained by upper intake limits. This restricts multi-scoop use and removes flexibility for users who want to scale intake for additional nutritional benefit.

From a formulation standpoint, synthetic vitamins and minerals are extremely cheap. Their inclusion often inflates the label without materially improving product quality or cost. This is why they are commonly used as label padding rather than for functional benefit. Absorption is also questionable. Many synthetic forms have lower or more variable bioavailability than food-derived sources, and without appropriate cofactors a significant portion may not be meaningfully utilised.

For most people consuming a reasonable diet, broad micronutrient fortification with synthetic vitamins is unnecessary, particularly when combined with a greens blend. Where deficiencies exist, targeted supplementation is more appropriate than adding small, non-individualised doses to a greens powder. In practice, synthetic vitamins and minerals primarily improve the appearance of the label. A food-first greens product is better served by focusing on whole ingredients, meaningful functional doses, and compounds that are genuinely difficult to obtain from the diet. I discuss this in more detail in this blog article.

Probiotics

I did not address or award marks for probiotics in this analysis for two reasons. First, almost all brands meaningfully underdose them. Second, most people do not need probiotics.

Probiotics are commonly included in greens powders, but in most cases they are highly underdosed. Effective probiotic supplementation typically requires 10 billion CFU or more per daily serving, delivered consistently and in forms designed to survive digestion. In greens blends, probiotics are often added in amounts well below this threshold, making them unlikely to provide a measurable benefit and serving primarily as a label addition.

AG1 provides 31 billion CFU per serving, which is within a range generally considered meaningful for probiotic supplementation. Magic Scoop, at 7 billion CFU, sits at the lower end and likely borders on being underdosed. Bloom applies a largely meaningless dose at approximately 0.8 billion CFU, which is unlikely to provide any measurable probiotic benefit.

However, most people do not need a probiotic. Instead, they need to address the root cause of gastrointestinal distress, which is most typically related to diet.

Why most people do not need a probiotic.

A healthy gut microbiome is primarily supported by diet, particularly fibre intake, plant diversity, and overall food quality. For individuals eating a reasonable diet with sufficient whole foods, probiotic supplementation rarely provides additional benefit.

• Probiotics can be useful in specific situations, such as:
• After a course of antibiotics
• Certain digestive conditions diagnosed by a clinician

Short-term support for specific symptoms (eg antibiotic-associated diarrhea)

Outside of these cases, adding probiotic bacteria does not necessarily improve gut health, and any introduced strains often do not permanently colonize the gut. For most people, improving diet quality and plant diversity is more impactful than taking a probiotic supplement.