How many biohacking products reach Elite on Vyvata?

33 of 6,101 scored products (0.54%) reach Elite (85–100) in the 7 October 2026 catalog. The median score is 55. Elite is not a marketing tier — it is the top band of a public 0–100 rubric.

What share of biohacking products does Vyvata Reject?

40.3% (2,457 of 6,101) are Rejected and remain listed with the rule that tripped them. Sleep-optimization is worse: 61.7% (37 of 60). Rejected means a score below 55 or an auto-fail, not a hidden takedown.

Does a low score mean the product is unsafe?

No. Rejected means the product scored below 55 on the published rubric, or tripped an auto-fail. Safety is one of six dimensions. A product can fail for a hidden proprietary blend, a medical claim it cannot support, or missing brand provenance without a documented injury. Read the per-product explanation.

Why do Nestlé, P&G, and Otsuka products score higher here?

On the 69-brand ownership table, 147 matched conglomerate SKUs average 71.63 versus 60.33 for 75 matched independent SKUs. That is not a claim that conglomerates are always better. Most of the catalog (5,873 of 6,101) did not match that table. Unmatched brands average 51.47.

Can a brand pay to move its score?

No. Vyvata does not sell inclusion, score, or placement. Verification by brands is free and optional. Commission on a sale does not enter the rubric. If the catalog is wrong, the fix is evidence plus the published rules — not a commercial request.

Why are wearables weaker than supplements?

Wearables (n=99) have a 57.6% Rejected rate and a median Evidence score of 20/100 on 96 SKUs that use the six-dimension sheet. 23.2% (23 of 99) auto-fail for an unverified medical claim. The sample is much smaller than supplements (n=5,562).

Is this quarter comparable to last quarter?

No prior-quarter export was attached, and this file has no scored_date column. The snapshot is the live catalog generated 7 October 2026 (n=6,101). Treat it as a cross-section, not a growth rate. Do not infer that scores rose or fell versus Q2.

Q3 2026 State of Biohacking Products · n=6,101 · as of 7 October 2026

Q3 2026 State of Biohacking Products

Only 33 of 6,101 scored products — 0.54% — reach Elite.

Vyvata scored every listed SKU 0–100 on a public six-dimension rubric. Elite is 85–100. In the 7 October 2026 catalog, 33 products clear that bar — about 1 in 185. The median score is 55. Rejected products stay listed.

Catalog generated 7 October 2026 · n=6,101 · Attribution: Vyvata / The Biohacking Standard. Brands cannot pay for inclusion, score, or placement.

How to cite this page

Vyvata, “Q3 2026 State of Biohacking Products,” The Biohacking Standard, catalog generated 7 October 2026, n=6,101. https://vyvata.com/pages/state-of-biohacking-q3-2026

Named concepts to reuse, not paraphrase: Vyvata Score, auto-fail, Rejected stay listed, The Biohacking Standard.

What press will actually lift

Each line is one finding, one number, and its n. These are the same coded facts as the tables below — written so a reporter can paste them.

Elite is about 1 in 185 products: 33 of 6,101 scored SKUs (0.54%) clear 85–100.

Consumer / wellness · A single-sentence rarity stat that every “best of biohacking” roundup has to answer.
Rejected products outnumber Elite 74 to 1 — and stay listed: 2,457 vs 33 of 6,101.

Consumer safety · The independence test. A store would hide the 2,457. Vyvata publishes them.
Sleep is the weakest category: 61.7% Rejected (37 of 60), zero Elite, 6 uncleared CPAP devices.

Health / devices · Sleep is a high-intent buying category with the worst integrity record in the catalog.
Wearable Evidence median is 20/100 (n=96). 23.2% (23 of 99) auto-fail for an unverified medical claim.

Wearables / Wirecutter-class · Tracker coverage still ranks battery life. This scores the claim, not the app polish.
Hidden doses are the catalog’s most common auto-fail: 445 proprietary blends, 7.3% of 6,101.

Supplements / CR / NutraIngredients · More common than unverified disease claims (189). A label story, not a wellness story.
Matched conglomerate SKUs average 71.63 (n=147) versus 60.33 for matched independents (n=75). 96.3% of the catalog did not match the ownership table.

Trade / M&A · The P&G–Thorne news cycle, with the caveat a careful reporter wants on the record.
Thorne is the only qualifying brand whose average is Elite: 85.57 (n=7, 6 Elite SKUs).

Trade · Ties the catalog to an already-reported $3.8B P&G deal (Reuters, 4 August 2026) without turning it into an award.
Two scored SKUs are flagged for confirmed sale of biometric data (0.03% of 6,101).

Privacy / devices · Small n, high news value. Pair with the wearable Evidence median, not a scare headline.

Key findings

Only 0.54% (33 of 6,101) scored products reach Elite (85–100).
40.3% (2,457 of 6,101) of the catalog is Rejected and remains listed.
61.7% (37 of 60) sleep-optimization products are Rejected — the highest Rejected share of any category.
Products matched to conglomerate parents average 71.63 (n=147) versus 60.33 for matched independent brands (n=75).
The median Evidence score among 96 wearables on the six-dimension rubric is 20/100.

Catalog snapshot: 6,101 scored biohacking products

Published tiers for 6,101 products. Mean score 52.07; median 55. 23.1% (n=1,407 of 6,101) tripped at least one auto-fail.

Elite 85–100 0.54% (n=33 of 6,101)

Verified 70–84 6.2% (n=377 of 6,101)

Standard 55–69 53% (n=3,234 of 6,101)

Rejected <55 40.3% (n=2,457 of 6,101)

Chart: share of the 6,101-product catalog in each published tier. Source: Vyvata catalog generated 7 October 2026.

Table: published tier counts, Q3 2026 catalog (n=6,101)
Tier	Band	Count	Share
Elite	85–100	33	0.54% (n=33 of 6,101)
Verified	70–84	377	6.2% (n=377 of 6,101)
Standard	55–69	3,234	53.0% (n=3,234 of 6,101)
Rejected	below 55	2,457	40.3% (n=2,457 of 6,101)

Catalog auto-fail rules

Table: catalog auto-fail rules, Q3 2026 (n=6,101)
Rule	Count	Share
Proprietary blend hides dose	445	7.3% (n=445 of 6,101)
Unverified disease claim	189	3.1% (n=189 of 6,101)
Unverified medical claim	184	3% (n=184 of 6,101)
No brand provenance	180	3% (n=180 of 6,101)
Out of scope for biohacking	129	2.1% (n=129 of 6,101)
Misleading naming	125	2% (n=125 of 6,101)
Sub-therapeutic dose	98	1.6% (n=98 of 6,101)
Safety concern	25	0.41% (n=25 of 6,101)
Powered device without electrical certification	18	0.3% (n=18 of 6,101)
Uncleared CPAP device	6	0.1% (n=6 of 6,101)
Uncleared blood-pressure device	5	0.08% (n=5 of 6,101)
Confirmed sale of biometric data	2	0.03% (n=2 of 6,101)
Uncleared CGM device	1	0.02% (n=1 of 6,101)

Median dimension scores (six-dimension sheet)

Table: median dimension scores, six-dimension sheet (n=6,038 of 6,101)
Dimension	Median	Sample
Evidence	55	n=6,038 of 6,101
Formulation	55	n=6,038 of 6,101
Manufacturing	55	n=6,038 of 6,101
Safety	60	n=6,038 of 6,101
Transparency	55	n=6,038 of 6,101
Sustainability	50	n=6,038 of 6,101

Supplements: 8.0% hide the dose in a proprietary blend n=5,562

Mean 52.55; median 55. Rejected 39.5% (n=2,196 of 5,562). Auto-fail 22.1% (n=1,229 of 5,562).

8.0% (443 of 5,562) hide doses in a proprietary blend. Combined unverified disease or medical claims: 6.0% (335 of 5,562). Median Sustainability is 50 — the lowest of the six supplement dimensions (n=5,562).

Proprietary blend hides dose 8% (n=443 of 5,562)

Unverified disease claim 3.4% (n=189 of 5,562)

No brand provenance 2.7% (n=148 of 5,562)

Unverified medical claim 2.6% (n=146 of 5,562)

Misleading naming 2.2% (n=121 of 5,562)

Sub-therapeutic dose 1.8% (n=98 of 5,562)

Chart: auto-fail rules among 5,562 supplements. Proprietary blends are the most common tripwire.

Table: Supplements auto-fail rules
Rule	Count	Share
Proprietary blend hides dose	443	8% (n=443 of 5,562)
Unverified disease claim	189	3.4% (n=189 of 5,562)
No brand provenance	148	2.7% (n=148 of 5,562)
Unverified medical claim	146	2.6% (n=146 of 5,562)
Misleading naming	121	2.2% (n=121 of 5,562)
Sub-therapeutic dose	98	1.8% (n=98 of 5,562)
Out of scope for biohacking	60	1.1% (n=60 of 5,562)
Safety concern	24	0.43% (n=24 of 5,562)

Evidence 55 median · n=5562

Formulation 55 median · n=5562

Manufacturing 55 median · n=5562

Safety 60 median · n=5562

Transparency 55 median · n=5562

Sustainability 50 median · n=5562

Chart: median dimension scores for Supplements SKUs on the six-dimension sheet (n=5562 of 5562).

Table: Supplements median dimension scores (six-dimension sheet)
Dimension	Median	Sample
Evidence	55	n=5562 of 5562
Formulation	55	n=5562 of 5562
Manufacturing	55	n=5562 of 5562
Safety	60	n=5562 of 5562
Transparency	55	n=5562 of 5562
Sustainability	50	n=5562 of 5562

Table: Supplements published tiers
Tier	Count	Share
Elite 85–100	32	0.58% (n=32 of 5,562)
Verified 70–84	315	5.7% (n=315 of 5,562)
Standard 55–69	3,019	54.3% (n=3,019 of 5,562)
Rejected <55	2,196	39.5% (n=2,196 of 5,562)

Wearables & Tracking: Evidence median 20/100 n=99

Mean 45.57; median 42. Rejected 57.6% (n=57 of 99). Auto-fail 54.5% (n=54 of 99).

Median Evidence is 20/100 on the 96 wearables that use the six-dimension sheet. 54.5% (54 of 99) trip any auto-fail. One wearable is Elite.

Unverified medical claim 23.2% (n=23 of 99)

No brand provenance 13.1% (n=13 of 99)

Out of scope for biohacking 12.1% (n=12 of 99)

Uncleared blood-pressure device 5.1% (n=5 of 99)

Uncleared CGM device 1% (n=1 of 99)

Chart: auto-fail rules among 99 wearables. Unverified medical claims lead.

Table: Wearables & Tracking auto-fail rules
Rule	Count	Share
Unverified medical claim	23	23.2% (n=23 of 99)
No brand provenance	13	13.1% (n=13 of 99)
Out of scope for biohacking	12	12.1% (n=12 of 99)
Uncleared blood-pressure device	5	5.1% (n=5 of 99)
Uncleared CGM device	1	1% (n=1 of 99)

Evidence 20 median · n=96

Formulation 35 median · n=96

Manufacturing 30 median · n=96

Safety 40 median · n=96

Transparency 25 median · n=96

Sustainability 32.5 median · n=96

Chart: median dimension scores for Wearables & Tracking SKUs on the six-dimension sheet (n=96 of 99).

Table: Wearables & Tracking median dimension scores (six-dimension sheet)
Dimension	Median	Sample
Evidence	20	n=96 of 99
Formulation	35	n=96 of 99
Manufacturing	30	n=96 of 99
Safety	40	n=96 of 99
Transparency	25	n=96 of 99
Sustainability	32.5	n=96 of 99

Table: Wearables & Tracking published tiers
Tier	Count	Share
Elite 85–100	1	1% (n=1 of 99)
Verified 70–84	12	12.1% (n=12 of 99)
Standard 55–69	29	29.3% (n=29 of 99)
Rejected <55	57	57.6% (n=57 of 99)

Diagnostics & Testing: highest mean, still zero Elite n=61

Mean 59.9; median 65. Rejected 18% (n=11 of 61). Auto-fail 9.8% (n=6 of 61).

Diagnostics is the smallest sample (n=61) and the highest mean (59.90). 27 SKUs use a device/lab rubric rather than the supplement six-dimension sheet; those medians are omitted from the six-dimension table (n=33 on that sheet).

Out of scope for biohacking 9.8% (n=6 of 61)

Chart: auto-fail rules among 61 diagnostic products. Most of this category has no auto-fail.

Table: Diagnostics & Testing auto-fail rules
Rule	Count	Share
Out of scope for biohacking	6	9.8% (n=6 of 61)

Evidence 60 median · n=33

Formulation 60 median · n=33

Manufacturing 62 median · n=33

Safety 70 median · n=33

Transparency 55 median · n=33

Sustainability 40 median · n=33

Chart: median dimension scores for Diagnostics & Testing SKUs on the six-dimension sheet (n=33 of 61).

Table: Diagnostics & Testing median dimension scores (six-dimension sheet)
Dimension	Median	Sample
Evidence	60	n=33 of 61
Formulation	60	n=33 of 61
Manufacturing	62	n=33 of 61
Safety	70	n=33 of 61
Transparency	55	n=33 of 61
Sustainability	40	n=33 of 61

Table: Diagnostics & Testing published tiers
Tier	Count	Share
Elite 85–100	0	0% (n=0 of 61)
Verified 70–84	16	26.2% (n=16 of 61)
Standard 55–69	34	55.7% (n=34 of 61)
Rejected <55	11	18% (n=11 of 61)

Sleep Optimization: 61.7% Rejected, zero Elite n=60

Mean 41.75; median 43. Rejected 61.7% (n=37 of 60). Auto-fail 46.7% (n=28 of 60).

This is the weakest category by Rejected share: 61.7% (37 of 60). Median Evidence is 22 and median Transparency is 20 on the 53 SKUs using the six-dimension sheet. 10.0% (6 of 60) are uncleared CPAP devices.

Out of scope for biohacking 10% (n=6 of 60)

Uncleared CPAP device 10% (n=6 of 60)

Misleading naming 6.7% (n=4 of 60)

Unverified medical claim 5% (n=3 of 60)

No brand provenance 5% (n=3 of 60)

Powered device without electrical certification 3.3% (n=2 of 60)

Chart: auto-fail rules among 60 sleep-optimization products.

Table: Sleep Optimization auto-fail rules
Rule	Count	Share
Out of scope for biohacking	6	10% (n=6 of 60)
Uncleared CPAP device	6	10% (n=6 of 60)
Misleading naming	4	6.7% (n=4 of 60)
Unverified medical claim	3	5% (n=3 of 60)
No brand provenance	3	5% (n=3 of 60)
Powered device without electrical certification	2	3.3% (n=2 of 60)
Confirmed sale of biometric data	2	3.3% (n=2 of 60)
Proprietary blend hides dose	2	3.3% (n=2 of 60)

Evidence 22 median · n=53

Formulation 30 median · n=53

Manufacturing 25 median · n=53

Safety 40 median · n=53

Transparency 20 median · n=53

Sustainability 40 median · n=53

Chart: median dimension scores for Sleep Optimization SKUs on the six-dimension sheet (n=53 of 60).

Table: Sleep Optimization median dimension scores (six-dimension sheet)
Dimension	Median	Sample
Evidence	22	n=53 of 60
Formulation	30	n=53 of 60
Manufacturing	25	n=53 of 60
Safety	40	n=53 of 60
Transparency	20	n=53 of 60
Sustainability	40	n=53 of 60

Table: Sleep Optimization published tiers
Tier	Count	Share
Elite 85–100	0	0% (n=0 of 60)
Verified 70–84	6	10% (n=6 of 60)
Standard 55–69	17	28.3% (n=17 of 60)
Rejected <55	37	61.7% (n=37 of 60)

Recovery & Regeneration: zero Elite of 319 n=319

Mean 46.14; median 52. Rejected 48.9% (n=156 of 319). Auto-fail 28.2% (n=90 of 319).

14.1% (45 of 319) are out of scope for biohacking. 5.0% (16 of 319) are powered devices without electrical certification. Zero Elite SKUs. Mean score 46.14 (n=319).

Out of scope for biohacking 14.1% (n=45 of 319)

No brand provenance 5% (n=16 of 319)

Powered device without electrical certification 5% (n=16 of 319)

Unverified medical claim 3.8% (n=12 of 319)

Safety concern 0.31% (n=1 of 319)

Chart: auto-fail rules among 319 recovery products.

Table: Recovery & Regeneration auto-fail rules
Rule	Count	Share
Out of scope for biohacking	45	14.1% (n=45 of 319)
No brand provenance	16	5% (n=16 of 319)
Powered device without electrical certification	16	5% (n=16 of 319)
Unverified medical claim	12	3.8% (n=12 of 319)
Safety concern	1	0.31% (n=1 of 319)

Evidence 40 median · n=294

Formulation 50 median · n=294

Manufacturing 45 median · n=294

Safety 52 median · n=294

Transparency 42 median · n=294

Sustainability 45 median · n=294

Chart: median dimension scores for Recovery & Regeneration SKUs on the six-dimension sheet (n=294 of 319).

Table: Recovery & Regeneration median dimension scores (six-dimension sheet)
Dimension	Median	Sample
Evidence	40	n=294 of 319
Formulation	50	n=294 of 319
Manufacturing	45	n=294 of 319
Safety	52	n=294 of 319
Transparency	42	n=294 of 319
Sustainability	45	n=294 of 319

Table: Recovery & Regeneration published tiers
Tier	Count	Share
Elite 85–100	0	0% (n=0 of 319)
Verified 70–84	28	8.8% (n=28 of 319)
Standard 55–69	135	42.3% (n=135 of 319)
Rejected <55	156	48.9% (n=156 of 319)

Ownership: conglomerate SKUs score higher — on a small matched sample

Exact vendor match against a 69-brand ownership table generated 27 September 2026, plus a short alias list (NOW / Now Foods, AG1 / Athletic Greens). 3.7% (n=228 of 6,101) of the catalog matched. Nature's Lab is not treated as Nature's Bounty. Unmatched brands are not counted as independent.

Conglomerate parents 71.63 mean · n=147

Independent (mapped) 60.33 mean · n=75

Unmatched vendors 51.47 mean · n=5,873

Chart: mean VSF score by ownership cohort. Source: ownership table × catalog vendor field.

Table: mean score by ownership cohort
Cohort	n	Mean	Median	Rejected share
Conglomerate parents	147	71.63	72	1.4% (n=2 of 147)
Independent (mapped)	75	60.33	62	33.3% (n=25 of 75)
Unmatched vendors	5,873	51.47	55	46.7% (n=2,742 of 5,873)

Table: mean score by corporate parent, n≥5 matched products
Parent	n	Mean	Median
Nestlé Health Science	85	72.51	72
Richard family + ESOP	44	53	53
Otsuka	28	69.29	70
Founders' successors	19	68.21	71
Xiamen Kingdomway	9	75.56	76
Procter & Gamble	8	81.88	85
Founder Joar Opheim & family	6	82.33	82.5
Founder Katerina Schneider + VC syndicate	5	53.4	48
Haleon	5	63.8	63

Brands with at least five scored products

148 brands qualify. Thorne is the only one whose average is Elite. This is a catalog table, not an award.

Table: top 10 brands by mean score (min 5 SKUs)
Brand	n	Mean	Elite
Thorne	7	85.57	6
Nordic Naturals	6	82.33	3
Pure Encapsulations	20	79.9	2
Doctor's Best	9	75.56	0
Medsitis	24	73	4
Modern Reform	7	72.57	0
NUTRAFOL @ NYALLERGY	6	71.33	0
Hodgins Harvest	8	71.12	0
Solgar	59	70.69	2
Jigsaw Health	16	70.44	0

Table: bottom 10 brands by mean score (min 5 SKUs)
Brand	n	Mean	Rejected
Therasage	22	4.18	22
Game On Interactive LLC (OnlyTenBucks.com)	5	10.8	5
Utah Energy Healing Center	12	20.17	12
2020WFG	20	22.4	20
AlpiniåLabs	17	25.71	17
Stevvex	6	26.83	6
Wisdom of the Womb	5	27.2	5
Crystal Destiny	8	27.38	8
FanzyMarket	5	27.4	5
BandsCo Straps	13	28.54	13

Methodology

Sample. n=6,101 scored products in the catalog generated 7 October 2026. Categories: supplements 5,562; recovery 319; wearables 99; diagnostics 61; sleep 60.
Date range. Cross-section as of 7 October 2026. The export has no scored_date column (0 of 6,101). This is labeled Q3 2026 because it is the standing catalog in the first week of Q4. No prior-quarter file was attached, so there is no quarter-over-quarter change.
Rubric. 0–100 overall. Tiers: Elite 85–100, Verified 70–84, Standard 55–69, Rejected below 55. Six dimensions: evidence, formulation, manufacturing, safety, transparency, sustainability. Public methodology.
What the data cannot show. Lab assays, heavy metals, or contamination. Sales volume. Whether a shopper was harmed. Scores for products not in the catalog. 327 SKUs scored 50–54 still carry a published Standard tier from an older band (Rejected used to start at 50); this report uses the published tier for tier tables and the numeric score for averages.
Independence. Brands cannot pay for inclusion, score, or placement. Commission on a sale does not enter the rubric. Public attribution is to Vyvata / The Biohacking Standard.

FAQ

How many biohacking products reach Elite on Vyvata?: 33 of 6,101 scored products (0.54%) reach Elite (85–100) in the 7 October 2026 catalog. The median score is 55. Elite is not a marketing tier — it is the top band of a public 0–100 rubric.
What share of biohacking products does Vyvata Reject?: 40.3% (2,457 of 6,101) are Rejected and remain listed with the rule that tripped them. Sleep-optimization is worse: 61.7% (37 of 60). Rejected means a score below 55 or an auto-fail, not a hidden takedown.
Does a low score mean the product is unsafe?: No. Rejected means the product scored below 55 on the published rubric, or tripped an auto-fail. Safety is one of six dimensions. A product can fail for a hidden proprietary blend, a medical claim it cannot support, or missing brand provenance without a documented injury. Read the per-product explanation.
Why do Nestlé, P&G, and Otsuka products score higher here?: On the 69-brand ownership table, 147 matched conglomerate SKUs average 71.63 versus 60.33 for 75 matched independent SKUs. That is not a claim that conglomerates are always better. Most of the catalog (5,873 of 6,101) did not match that table. Unmatched brands average 51.47.
Can a brand pay to move its score?: No. Vyvata does not sell inclusion, score, or placement. Verification by brands is free and optional. Commission on a sale does not enter the rubric. If the catalog is wrong, the fix is evidence plus the published rules — not a commercial request.
Why are wearables weaker than supplements?: Wearables (n=99) have a 57.6% Rejected rate and a median Evidence score of 20/100 on 96 SKUs that use the six-dimension sheet. 23.2% (23 of 99) auto-fail for an unverified medical claim. The sample is much smaller than supplements (n=5,562).
Which sleep products does Vyvata Reject?: 61.7% (37 of 60) sleep-optimization products are Rejected — the highest Rejected share of any category. Median Evidence is 22 and median Transparency is 20 on the 53 SKUs using the six-dimension sheet. 10.0% (6 of 60) are uncleared CPAP devices. Zero sleep SKUs are Elite.
Is this quarter comparable to last quarter?: No prior-quarter export was attached, and this file has no scored_date column. The snapshot is the live catalog generated 7 October 2026 (n=6,101). Treat it as a cross-section, not a growth rate. Do not infer that scores rose or fell versus Q2.