The short answer

Most products on KibbleLab receive a score from 1 to 10, computed by arithmetic from label data (the ingredient list, the guaranteed analysis, the AAFCO statement, disclosed calories) plus two verified off-label facts: recall history and whether the maker provides evidence addressing WSAVA's pet-food selection criteria (our own assessment; WSAVA does not certify or endorse brands). Prescription diets are shown without a score, since a veterinarian directs them. The same inputs always produce the same score, and this page publishes the complete rubric, so you can recompute any product's score yourself. Each product page shows the breakdown behind its own number.

The score reflects the rubric below and nothing else. It is determined independently: we earn affiliate commissions on some links, and that never affects a score. The rubric was authored by an NAVC Certified Pet Nutrition Coach (PNCC), and this page publishes it in full. It rates the label, not your individual pet; that is what the personalized tools are for.

Different products, different checks

A dental chew should not be graded on standards written for a complete diet, so the score runs on tracks. Every check is bounded to 0 to 10 (a deduction can never push a check below 0), and the overall score is the equal-weighted average of the checks that ran, then a small verified-manufacturer adjustment (below), with the final result capped at 10.

  • Complete diets (dry and wet): nutritional profile, ingredient composition, adequacy substantiation, health considerations.
  • Treats, chews, and toppers: calorie and portion clarity, ingredient composition, health considerations. No AAFCO check, because these are not complete-and-balanced products.
  • Supplements: actives and dosage disclosure, ingredient composition, health considerations.
  • Prescription (therapeutic) diets: we show the label breakdown but assign no overall score, and they never appear in ranked lists. A therapeutic diet is formulated for a medical condition under veterinary direction, so grading it against general standards would misjudge it. Your veterinarian selects the diet.
  • Complementary foods: a wet food whose label we have recorded as "for supplemental or intermittent feeding only" is scored on the topper track, not as a complete meal, and its page says so.

Nutritional profile (complete diets)

Protein (weight 50%), fat (30%), and fiber (20%), each evaluated on a dry-matter basis so wet and dry foods are compared fairly. Dry-matter conversion divides the as-fed value by (100 minus moisture) times 100. The bands, in percent dry matter:

  • Adult dog: protein floor 18.0, reference range 21.0 to 40.0; fat floor 5.5, reference range 10.0 to 20.0.
  • Puppy and all-life-stages: protein floor 22.5, reference range 25.0 to 40.0; fat floor 8.5, reference range 10.0 to 25.0.
  • Adult cat: protein floor 26.0, reference range 33.0 to 50.0; fat floor 9.0, reference range 15.0 to 25.0.
  • Kitten and all-life-stages: protein floor 30.0, reference range 33.0 to 50.0; fat as adult.

Guaranteed-analysis protein and fat are label minimums, and fiber and moisture are maximums, so we score the guarantee, a conservative reading, since a food often contains more protein than its stated minimum. Points: below the reference floor scores 0, floor to the reference range scores 6, inside the reference range scores 10, above it scores 8. The floors are the AAFCO nutrient-profile minimums. The lower edge of the reference range uses FEDIAF's minimum recommended levels for lower-activity adults, which sit above the AAFCO minimum; the upper edges (for example 40% protein) are KibbleLab screening thresholds, not limits set by AAFCO or FEDIAF. Fiber inside 2 to 5 percent dry matter scores 10, outside scores 8; no authority publishes a fiber requirement, so this band is a light-weighted convention that can never fail a food.

Nutritional adequacy substantiation (complete diets)

  • Feeding-trial substantiation ("animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures...") scores 10: a trial is direct evidence the diet was eaten and sustained the animal.
  • Formulation substantiation ("formulated to meet the nutrient profiles...") scores 7.
  • A complete-and-balanced claim whose substantiation method we cannot read scores 7, the same as formulation, since the claim requires at least meeting the nutrient profile.
  • Declared calcium above the AAFCO maximum for the claim (2.5 percent dry matter generally, 1.8 percent where the statement covers growth of large-size dogs) deducts 3.

Ingredient composition (screening, not ranking)

The ingredient list tells you what is in a food and lets you screen for concerns. It does not tell you digestibility, nutrient contribution, or supplier quality, and the first ingredient is not a quality grade (fresh meat is mostly water, so it lists high while contributing less dry matter than a lower-listed meal). So we do not award points for a named, positioned, or premium-sounding ingredient. A clean label starts at 8, not 10, on purpose: a label with no red flags is not the same as verified excellence (the label cannot prove digestibility or quality), so 8 is a neutral “nothing wrong here” ceiling, and the remaining headroom is earned elsewhere (a feeding trial, top nutrient scores, verified manufacturing). We deduct only for label-verifiable concerns:

  • Unnamed animal sources ("meat meal", "animal fat" without a species): -1 each, up to -2. Naming the species is basic transparency.
  • Artificial colors (numbered dyes), artificial flavors, or added sweeteners: -1.5 each, up to -4.5.
  • Plant protein high in the list (soy, pea, or gluten in the first 5 positions): -1, a protein-source transparency flag: the guaranteed protein figure then reflects more plant contribution than a meat-forward package implies. It is not a nutrition-quality judgment; actual protein adequacy is scored on a dry-matter basis in the nutritional profile above.

What we do not penalize, because the evidence does not support it: named meat meals and by-products, grains and corn, and synthetic preservatives at regulated levels. And real protein quantity is not lost by refusing to rank ingredients: it is scored directly, on a dry-matter basis, in the nutritional profile above. Our grain-free explainer and science page cover the evidence.

Health considerations

Starts at 10, with deductions for formulation patterns worth knowing about. Each fact is counted once: artificial additives are handled in ingredient composition, and calcium in adequacy substantiation, so nothing is penalized twice.

  • Pulse-heavy grain-free pattern, -2 (complete dog diets only): no grains plus two or more pulse ingredients (peas, lentils, chickpeas) in the first 10 positions. This applies only to complete dog diets; it is never applied to cat food, treats, toppers, or supplements. The FDA has not established that any diet causes DCM, and reports involved both grain-free and grain-containing foods; the reported canine cases concentrated in pulse-heavy formulations, so we flag the pattern, not the absence of grains.
  • Recall history: a recorded recall matched to this product since January 2021 deducts 2. Otherwise, if its brand carries a recorded recall since that cutoff, the product deducts 1. These never stack: a directly-recalled product loses 2 and no more, so a single recall is never counted twice. Recalls display in full on the product page. The cutoff and point values are fixed and published, and change only with a rubric version.

Treats, toppers, and calorie clarity

Veterinary guidance (WSAVA, AAHA) is that treats should stay within about 10 percent of daily calories. That advice only works when you can know a treat's calories, so the calorie clarity check rewards disclosure: calories per treat or piece scores 10, calories only per 100 grams scores 6. We score the disclosure, and leave the feeding decision to you and your vet.

Supplements: actives and dosage disclosure

A supplement is not food, so we grade what separates a serious supplement from an empty one: disclosure. Quantified actives declared in the guaranteed analysis (glucosamine, chondroitin, EPA and DHA, taurine, probiotic counts) score 10. Named functional ingredients (probiotics, enzymes, herbs, amino acids, chelated minerals, omega oils) without declared amounts score 6. Neither scores 2. If a product's own label will not say what is in a dose, the score says so.

One exception: a homeopathic remedy (identified by its label, "homeopathic," a named homeopathic preparation, or a potency dilution) cannot substantiate an active at its labeled dilution, so it is held to the lowest disclosure tier and carries a further deduction. This keeps a homeopathic product from earning credit for listing ingredients that its own dilution has reduced to trace amounts.

Manufacturer evidence (a separate dimension)

The label cannot answer whether the maker employs a qualified nutritionist, discloses how and where the food is manufactured and what quality controls are used, or conducts research. The WSAVA global nutrition guidelines publish the exact questions a buyer should ask a manufacturer about these things (WSAVA does not require a company to own its plants; disclosure and quality control are what it asks about). WSAVA does not audit, certify, approve, or maintain a list of qualifying brands, and it does not endorse companies. What we record is our own assessment of whether a brand provides verifiable evidence addressing those criteria; a brand assessed as meeting them earns a small bonus of +0.5 to the overall. This is bonus-only: a brand not assessed as meeting them is never penalized, because absence of evidence is not evidence of failure. The bonus sits outside the scored checks and never changes what the label itself scores. In practice a perfect 10 is reserved for foods that combine that verified evidence, feeding-trial substantiation, top nutrient scores, and a clean label.

Missing data never lowers a score

We evaluate based on the information available. Each product page shows how much ran: "computed from N of M applicable checks." Scores update automatically as more data lands.

What the score means

  • 9.0 to 10: Top Pick
  • 8.0 to 8.9: Strong Choice
  • 7.0 to 7.9: Solid Option
  • 6.0 to 6.9: Worth a Conversation
  • Below 6: Review Carefully

Scores of 9.5 and above are reserved for products where every applicable check was computed; a product with any check missing caps at 9.4 until its data completes, no matter how well the remaining checks score.

The score describes the product's label, not your pet. A 9.1 food can still be wrong for a dog with a chicken sensitivity; that is what the personalized tools are for.

Worked example 1: a feeding-trialed wet dog food

Hill's Science Diet Adult Healthy Cuisine (chicken and vegetables stew) has dry-matter protein, fat, and fiber all inside the reference range: nutritional profile 10.0. Its statement is feeding-trial substantiated: AAFCO 10.0. A clean label with no screening flags: ingredient composition 8.0. No health deductions: 10.0. Average: (10.0 + 10.0 + 8.0 + 10.0) / 4 = 9.5. Hill's is assessed as providing evidence addressing WSAVA's selection criteria: +0.5. Overall: 10.0. This is why a 10 is rare: it takes verified manufacturing on top of a feeding trial, in-range nutrients, and a clean label.

Worked example 2: a single-ingredient treat

Nature's Logic Beef Lung treats declare calories per piece: calorie clarity 10.0. One clean ingredient, no screening flags: composition 8.0. No health deductions: 10.0. Overall: (10.0 + 8.0 + 10.0) / 3 = 9.33, displayed as 9.3. There is no AAFCO check, because a treat is not a complete diet and is not graded as one.

What the score deliberately leaves out

Some things cannot be read from a label reliably, so the score leaves them out. We do not estimate carbohydrate or caloric distribution: that needs an ash figure most labels omit. We do not credit or deduct for a food being raw, fresh, or minimally processed: those describe form, not proven benefit. Digestibility, amino-acid quality, and bioavailability require feeding or laboratory data a package does not carry.

Sources

AAFCO Dog and Cat Food Nutrient Profiles (2014 revision) and AAFCO model regulations; FEDIAF Nutritional Guidelines (2025); National Research Council, Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats (2006); WSAVA Global Nutrition Committee guidelines; 2021 AAHA Nutrition and Weight Management Guidelines; FDA publications on pet food labeling and the DCM investigation. Our science page carries the full reference list.

Based on published veterinary nutrition research (AAFCO, FEDIAF, NRC, WSAVA, AAHA)

KibbleLab Explains articles are educational, and are not veterinary advice. Before starting an elimination diet, a weight plan, or any major diet change, talk to your veterinarian.

Next article What does 'WSAVA-aligned' actually mean?