Guayaki Naturally Caffeinated Yerba Mate Dietary Supplements, Mate Chocolatte · Nutrisiq

Nutrition snapshot

Guayaki Naturally Caffeinated Yerba Mate Dietary Supplements, Mate Chocolatte

Name: Guayaki Naturally Caffeinated Yerba Mate Dietary Supplements, Mate Chocolatte
Brand: Guayaki
SKU: 0632432969817

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Moderate signal

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Guayaki Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

Uncertain or missing data

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Non-sugar sweeteners (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as stevia support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (13 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality53/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 69/100

Quite good

nutrition profile is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Nutrition profile

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

low

Data confidence

Data confidence 39/100

Low reliability

Data coverage is limited and the result should be interpreted with caution.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

69/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Very highly processed · Limited estimate

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Mixed

53/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

Nutrition score measures nutrient profile only. Processing, environment, label quality, and data confidence stay separate so missing data or formulation signals do not silently change nutrition quality.

Data is limited. The result should be treated as an initial indication rather than a final assessment.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
Impact: medium
Non-sugar sweeteners (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
Record completeness is 22%.
Impact: medium

Some source data is incomplete for this product: sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, fiber per 100g, protein per 100g, quantity, category, allergens, and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

Uncertain or missing data

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Non-sugar sweeteners (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as stevia support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (13 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality53/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 69/100

Quite good

nutrition profile is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Nutrition profile

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

low

Data confidence

Data confidence 39/100

Low reliability

Data coverage is limited and the result should be interpreted with caution.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

69/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Very highly processed · Limited estimate

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Mixed

53/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

Data is limited. The result should be treated as an initial indication rather than a final assessment.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
Impact: medium
Non-sugar sweeteners (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
Record completeness is 22%.
Impact: medium

Guayaki Naturally Caffeinated Yerba Mate Dietary Supplements, Mate Chocolatte

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 69/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Guayaki Naturally Caffeinated Yerba Mate Dietary Supplements, Mate Chocolatte

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 69/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Performance

What lowers the rating

Kofeiin ja stimulandid

Mittesuhkrulised magusained

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Kofeiin ja energiajoogid laste puhul

Mittesuhkrulised magusained lapse valikus