Mainstream supplement brand
Transparent Labs is a US sports-nutrition brand whose core positioning is full-dose label transparency (naming the exact milligram amount of each active ingredient rather than hiding doses inside a proprietary blend), sold direct-to-consumer.
quality claims we could confirm ourselves, rather than repeat from the vendor's marketing.
Pre-workout, protein powder, creatine and related sports-nutrition products, marketed on fully disclosed per-ingredient dosing rather than proprietary blends.
This is an informational review of a mainstream, widely available consumer brand, not a research-use-only or prescription product. Nothing here is medical advice, and nothing here should be read as an endorsement to buy. We describe what the brand says about itself and what we could find in the public record, and we separate the two.
Graded by whether we could confirm it ourselves or are only repeating what the vendor states. A vendor's honesty about its own testing is a different question from what a published trial shows, so this is a separate scale from the evidence grades on our guides.
Full-dose label disclosure is a specific, checkable claim (you can read the label and see a milligram number per ingredient, rather than a blend total), which is a real differentiator from brands that do use proprietary blends. We did not independently cross-check a batch's actual contents against the label via lab testing.
Where the vendor states thisNaming a dose on the label is different from an independent lab confirming the bottle actually contains that dose; we did not find a public, per-batch certificate of analysis on the pages we reviewed.
No. Printing each ingredient's dose on the label is a different claim from third-party batch testing; check for a separate, named testing program or public certificate of analysis if that matters to you.
Every fact above traces to one of these pages, published by the vendor itself and checked on September 27, 2026. Vendor policy pages change without notice, so if something here looks out of date, it probably is.
Compare against
Open pricing, public COAs, strict research-only gate
