SelfAssay

SelfAssay is a web app for people who take supplements seriously and want evidence instead of marketing behind what they put in their bodies. It researches and grades compounds, supplements, peptides, and longevity ingredients, and it lets you track your own stack over time. The framing on the site is blunt about the gap it's filling, since general AI tends to be unreliable, supplement databases are incomplete, forums are unvetted, and a clinician's scope on these questions is limited. SelfAssay tries to sit in the middle of all of that with graded, cited answers you can actually check for yourself. The pitch, in short, is rigor rather than hype, and the whole interface is organized around backing up every claim it makes.

At the center of the product is a grading system that scores each compound across three separate axes. One axis weighs what the community reports from real-world use, another looks at the conclusions drawn from clinical trials, and the third tracks the safety profile. Keeping those apart matters, because a compound can carry enthusiastic user reports and thin clinical backing, or a clean safety record alongside mixed results. Seeing all three side by side gives you a more honest read than a single star rating ever could, and it keeps hype and evidence in their own lanes. A grade that quietly blends anecdote and study data hides exactly the distinctions a careful user wants to see, and SelfAssay's approach is to refuse to blur them together.

Those grades don't come from nowhere. SelfAssay triangulates across a large evidence base that the site puts at more than 114,000 peer-reviewed studies, over 181,000 real-world user reports, and more than 186,000 knowledge-graph relations tying it all together. Every claim arrives as a cited dossier that shows the source, the method, and the sample size behind it, so you can judge the strength of the evidence rather than taking a verdict on trust. That citation-first posture is the whole pitch, captured in the site's own line about being cited, private, and member-owned. It's a deliberate contrast with the usual supplement advice, where a confident recommendation rarely comes with anything you can trace back to a study or a real cohort of users.

Beyond research, SelfAssay is built to track your own protocol. You can log the stack you're running and measure outcomes as an n-of-1 experiment against your biomarkers, which turns a pile of pills into something you can actually evaluate for yourself. It also flags interactions across an entire combination, not just one compound at a time, so a stack that looks fine ingredient by ingredient still gets checked as a whole. With more than 450 compounds covered, most serious protocols will find their pieces represented. The combination of grading and tracking is what makes it more than a reference, since it connects the general evidence about a compound to the specific question of whether it's doing anything measurable in your own numbers.

The audience is clear from the copy, since it's built for biohacking, longevity, and serious stacks, and it leans on rigor over hype throughout. That points at people already running deliberate protocols who are tired of guessing, along with practitioners who manage this kind of thing for clients. It's less suited to someone who just takes a daily multivitamin and doesn't want to think about it any further. If you're the type who reads the studies and wants them organized, graded, and tied back to your own results, this is squarely aimed at you. The tone throughout assumes a reader who'd rather see the evidence and decide than be told what to buy.

What separates SelfAssay from a generic search or a supplement store's ratings is the combination of citation and privacy. It's willing to show its work on every grade, and it frames itself as private and member-owned rather than a data-harvesting front for selling product. The n-of-1 tracking against your own biomarkers is also uncommon, since most tools stop at general information and never connect a compound back to whether it's actually working for you specifically. That link between the broad evidence and your own measured results is the part that's genuinely hard to find elsewhere, and it's what turns a research tool into something you keep using as your protocol changes over time.

Access is freemium. A free tier covers basic stack tracking and limited use of the tools, a Pro plan runs $19 a month or $145 a year for the full research and tracking experience, and a Practitioner plan at $29 a month or $199 a year adds client exports for people managing others. That structure lets you try the tracking side for nothing and upgrade when you want the deeper cited research or the tools for handling clients. As with anything health-related, it's a research and tracking aid rather than medical advice, and the site's rigor-first tone reflects that. Anyone weighing a real protocol should still run decisions past a professional, with SelfAssay as the evidence layer underneath.