Why Standardised Extracts Beat Extract Ratios Every Time

Posted by Mo (Operations Manager at BioVerve) on 2nd Feb 2026

Why Standardised Extracts Beat Extract Ratios Every Time

And how to tell the difference on a supplement label

If you’ve ever compared supplements, you’ve probably seen big numbers on the label.

10:1. 25:1. 50:1.

They look impressive. They sound scientific. And they’re often used to imply strength or superiority.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: extract ratios tell you very little about what’s actually in the product.

Standardisation, on the other hand, tells you almost everything that matters.

First: what is an extract ratio?

An extract ratio simply describes how much raw plant material was used to produce an extract.

For example:

10:1 means 10 parts raw plant were used to make 1 part extract
50:1 means 50 parts raw plant were used to make 1 part extract

That’s all it tells you.

It does not tell you:

Which compounds survived extraction
Whether the active compounds are present
Whether two batches are consistent
Whether the extract is stable over time

In other words, an extract ratio describes process input, not final composition.

Why high extract ratios are often misleading

Large extract ratios are often assumed to mean “stronger”.

Sometimes that’s true. Often, it isn’t. Here’s why.

1) Ratios depend on how the raw material is measured

If raw plant material is measured before drying, before cleaning, or before removing excess moisture and debris, you can inflate the ratio dramatically — without changing the extract in any meaningful way.

A “50:1” extract may not be meaningfully different from a “10:1” extract measured more conservatively.

2) Ratios say nothing about active compounds

Plants contain dozens — sometimes hundreds — of compounds.

An extract ratio doesn’t tell you which compounds were extracted, which degraded, which were lost, or which ones actually matter.

Two “10:1” extracts can behave completely differently depending on extraction method, temperature, solvent choice, and how the ingredient is handled and stored.

3) Ratios can’t be independently verified

This is a key point that rarely gets discussed: a third-party laboratory generally cannot confirm an extract ratio from the extract alone.

To validate the ratio properly, you would typically need the original raw plant material, the finished extract, and manufacturing context. Without that, the ratio is effectively a claim — not a measurement.

So what is standardisation?

A standardised extract is defined by what it contains, not just how it was made.

It’s typically standardised to one or more identified marker or active compounds at a guaranteed minimum level, verified through analytical testing.

Examples include:

“Standardised to 2% eurycomanone”
“Standardised to 12% total withanolides”
“Standardised to 95% polyphenols”

This tells you what’s in the extract, how much is there, and what to expect batch to batch.

Why standardisation actually matters

1) Consistency

With standardisation, each batch is made to a defined specification, which supports more consistent results over time. With ratios alone, two batches of the “same” extract can vary dramatically — even if the ratio is identical.

2) Transparency

Standardised extracts can be tested and compared against reference standards, making it far easier to verify identity and composition.

3) Stability and formulation

Knowing which compounds are present (and at what levels) supports better formulation decisions, improves shelf stability, and reduces the need for unnecessary excipients.

It also discourages chasing extreme ratios that compromise handling and longevity.

Real-world examples

Tongkat Ali

Tongkat Ali is often marketed with dramatic extract ratios. But what usually matters more is marker content — particularly eurycomanone.

An extract standardised to a defined eurycomanone percentage tells you far more than a ratio ever could.

Ashwagandha

An Ashwagandha extract listed as “50:1” doesn’t tell you whether withanolides are present, which fractions they contain, or whether they survived extraction.

An extract standardised to total withanolides (and sometimes specific fractions) does.

Fadogia agrestis

Fadogia is a good example of where ratios still exist — because research hasn’t yet clearly established the best marker compounds for standardisation.

In those cases, ratios can act as a rough proxy, but they should be treated cautiously and backed by transparent sourcing and testing.

When extract ratios still have a place

Extract ratios aren’t inherently bad. They can be useful when active compounds haven’t been clearly identified, research is limited, or traditional use is the primary reference point.

However, very large ratios (for example, 50:1 or 100:1) should prompt questions rather than assumptions. For many botanicals, a more realistic range is often 5:1 to 25:1.

The takeaway most labels won’t tell you

Big numbers are easy to print. Consistency is harder.

If you care about predictability, transparency, and long-term reliability, standardisation matters far more than extract ratios.

Ratios describe the past. Standardisation describes the present.