Supplement Facts Check

Head to head

Align Probiotic Pro Formula vs Phillips' Colon Health Daily Probiotic

Align Probiotic Pro Formula discloses more: 4 out of 6 against 2. That is a statement about Phillips' Colon Health Daily Probiotic's label, not about the product.

What this compares. Six yes-or-no questions about what each label discloses, scored under methodology v1.14 from dated screenshots of the two live labels (Align Probiotic Pro Formula captured 2026-09-27, Phillips' Colon Health Daily Probiotic captured 2026-09-27). A higher score means the label tells you more, not that the product works better. Neither product was lab-tested, and nothing here is medical advice or a recommendation to buy either one.

Side by side

CriterionAlign Probiotic Pro FormulaPhillips' Colon Health Daily ProbioticAgreement
1. Exact amount for every active ingredient
No proprietary blend appears anywhere on the Supplement Facts panel.
1 ✓0 ✗differ
2. Standardization percentage stated
Wherever potency depends on a percentage, such as % withanolides, the label states it.
1 ✓1 ✓same
3. Chemical form or strain named
“Magnesium glycinate,” not “magnesium.” For probiotics, every organism carries a strain designation.
1 ✓1 ✓same
4. Dose within the trial range
The disclosed dose falls inside the range human trials used for the outcome the product claims.
0 ✗0 ✗same
5. Certificate of analysis is public
A third-party certificate is reachable with no email gate and no account.
0 ✗0 ✗same
6. Per-serving amounts are complete
Serving size and servings per container are both on the panel.
1 ✓0 ✗differ
Disclosure score4/62/6

Where they differ

The pair splits on 2 of the six criteria. The reasoning below is the same text that appears on each product page.

1 / 0
1. Exact amount for every active ingredient

Align Probiotic Pro Formula: The single active carries an exact amount, Bifidobacterium longum subsp. longum 35624 10 mg. No proprietary blend.

Phillips' Colon Health Daily Probiotic: The panel line reads 'Proprietary Blend: 3 Billion CFUs' in those exact words, covering two organisms with no split between them. The most explicit proprietary blend in the sample; most others use a branded blend name instead.

1 / 0
6. Per-serving amounts are complete

Align Probiotic Pro Formula: Serving size 1 capsule and servings per container 63 are both printed on the panel.

Phillips' Colon Health Daily Probiotic: Serving size 1 capsule is stated but servings per container is absent from the Supplement Facts panel. The carton front reads '60 capsules', which is not the panel.

Where they agree

Both labels were scored the same way on the remaining 4.

1 / 1
2. Standardization percentage stated

Align Probiotic Pro Formula: No standardization-dependent ingredient in the formula.

Phillips' Colon Health Daily Probiotic: No standardization-dependent ingredient in the formula.

1 / 1
3. Chemical form or strain named

Align Probiotic Pro Formula: Strain designation 35624 is printed, not the species alone.

Phillips' Colon Health Daily Probiotic: Both organisms carry strain designations, Lactobacillus rhamnosus (LGG) and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis (BB-12). Two of the best-characterised strains in the probiotic literature, named properly.

0 / 0
4. Dose within the trial range

Align Probiotic Pro Formula: Under methodology v1.13. The panel declares 1x10^9 CFU at manufacture but guarantees only 1x10^7 through the best-by date, and the through-expiry figure governs. Whorwell 2006 (PMID 16863564, n=362) found 1x10^8 CFU significantly superior to placebo in capsule form while 1x10^6 and 1x10^10 were not, so the guaranteed dose is ten times below the only capsule dose shown to work. Note that the at-manufacture figure of 1x10^9 would have scored 1 under the benefit-of-the-doubt rule; the ruling and the objection to it are published in the methodology.

Phillips' Colon Health Daily Probiotic: The 3 Billion CFU figure is an aggregate across two strains with no split, so neither can be compared to its own trial range under the attribution rule. The point survives even the most generous possible reading: if the entire 3x10^9 CFU were LGG, it would still fall below the 1x10^10 to 2x10^10 CFU/day range verified from Vanderhoof 1999 (PMID 10547243), so no allocation of the blend puts LGG in range. Under v1.13 no through-expiry guarantee and no at-manufacture qualifier appears anywhere on the panel either.

0 / 0
5. Certificate of analysis is public

Align Probiotic Pro Formula: No publicly accessible third-party certificate of analysis located 2026-09-27. Search covered the 12 listing images, alignprobiotics.com product and education pages, and a site-scoped web search for 'certificate of analysis'. The alignprobiotics.com footer could not be walked directly because the domain is blocked to this session's browser, so the brand-site leg of the search is weaker here than for other rows. Recorded as a negative finding, not a claim that none exists.

Phillips' Colon Health Daily Probiotic: No publicly accessible third-party certificate of analysis located 2026-09-27 (listing images, phillipsdigestive.com, site-scoped and open web search). Recorded as a negative finding, not a claim that none exists.

The two scorecards

Disclosure Facts
Align Probiotic Pro FormulaAlign · label captured 2026-09-27
Disclosure score4/6
  1. 1. Exact amount for every active ingredient1 ✓
  2. 2. Standardization percentage stated1 ✓
  3. 3. Chemical form or strain named1 ✓
  4. 4. Dose within the trial range0 ✗
  5. 5. Certificate of analysis is public0 ✗
  6. 6. Per-serving amounts are complete1 ✓
Each criterion scores 1 or 0. No weighting, no partial credit.
Why it scored this way →
Disclosure Facts
Phillips' Colon Health Daily ProbioticPhillips' · label captured 2026-09-27
Disclosure score2/6
  1. 1. Exact amount for every active ingredient0 ✗
  2. 2. Standardization percentage stated1 ✓
  3. 3. Chemical form or strain named1 ✓
  4. 4. Dose within the trial range0 ✗
  5. 5. Certificate of analysis is public0 ✗
  6. 6. Per-serving amounts are complete0 ✗
Each criterion scores 1 or 0. No weighting, no partial credit.
Why it scored this way →

Other comparisons

All comparisons →   Both rows in the dataset →