Evidence is modest and scattered rather than anchored by one standout cardiovascular area. The strongest current signals are for male fertility parameters and statin-related muscle symptoms, while heart failure and migraine now look more mixed than older summaries suggested. The popular ubiquinol-vs-ubiquinone debate is still more marketing than clinical data.
Each row is a different health effect. A means the support looks strongest, B likely helpful, C mixed or modest, and — not enough human evidence yet.
Papers are individual studies. Research reviews summarize evidence from multiple studies, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Dose, form and timing based on trials in the database.
Products that pass third-party quality testing.
Product quality data coming soon
Product recommendations are being built from USP Verified, NSF Certified, and Labdoor test data. Products will only appear here after the supplement itself clears the evidence bar above — and only if the product passes third-party purity testing.
Grades come from 125 unique research papers indexed from PubMed — including 27 meta-analyses, 22 systematic reviews, 2 Cochrane reviews, and 74 randomized trials. The Cochrane review on CoQ10 for heart failure rates evidence as "low quality" overall — capping that outcome at B even with positive direction. Mitochondrial-cocktail trials where CoQ10 effect cannot be isolated were marked low-confidence. Each supplement is graded by health effect using a certainty × effect matrix applied across PubMed evidence per health effect. Cochrane reviews and high-quality systematic reviews carry the most weight. From abstract-only data, "high certainty" is rare — most A grades come from moderate certainty plus consistent meaningful-positive evidence. See Methodology for full detail.
Read the full methodology → · Download all 125 citations (PDF)