PetLabelIQ — Scan fast. Dive deeper.

How this tool works

PetLabelIQ applies a defined nutritional framework to publicly available ingredient labels. Every score is a model-based interpretation — not a laboratory measurement, veterinary assessment, or statement of fact about any brand's product.

Our framework prioritizes: named whole-meat protein sources, organ meat inclusion, natural sufficiency (whole-food nutrients over synthetic supplementation), low carbohydrate load, and clean preservation. All products — including NOBL Foods products — are scored against these criteria without exception.

Use these scores as a starting point for deeper conversations with your veterinarian or the manufacturer — not as a final verdict.

Scan fast. Dive deeper.

Pet food nutrition intelligence

Barcode / UPC

or search by name

NOBL (3)

NOBL Beef & Chicken NOBL Turkey & Duck NOBL Vegan

Featured chips below are auto-sampled across our scoring range — high, mid, and low — to demonstrate the framework's spread, not to recommend brands. (n) = total products searchable in that format. Hover any chip to see its score.

Brand or product name

Brand

Product name

Format

UPC (optional)

Protein %

Fat %

Fiber %

Moisture %

kcal / kg (optional)

AAFCO statement

Full ingredient list

📷 No photo yet

Capture the back of the bag where the ingredients list and guaranteed analysis are printed. The model reads everything in one shot — brand, recipe, GA, and ingredients.

Upload instead

About PetLabelIQ

Scan fast. Dive deeper.

Transparency disclosure

PetLabelIQ was developed by NOBL Foods. NOBL products are evaluated using the exact same criteria, weights, and scoring methodology as every other brand in this database — no exceptions.

The composite score, digestibility proxy, and EAA/protein proxy apply identically to all products including our own. We built this tool because we believe every dog owner deserves to see past the marketing on every bag — including ours.

If you believe any score is inaccurate or inconsistent across brands, we want to know: customerservice@noblfoods.com

How scoring works

Composite Score

The headline number. Weighted: Ingredient Quality (40%) + Digestibility (30%) + EAA/Protein Quality (30%). This is the number that reflects the full nutritional picture.

Ingredient Quality

Scores the actual quality of what's in the formula — and what isn't. Built from six sub-scores: protein foundation (whole meats, organ inclusion, protein density), natural sufficiency (whole-food nutrients replacing synthetics), carbohydrate quality, fat source quality, safety profile, and ingredient count. A formula earns its score from zero — every point is justified.

Digestibility Proxy

Estimates how well your dog can absorb the food. Based on processing format (freeze-dried and raw score above kibble), protein prominence, starch dilution, fiber burden, and mineral delivery form. Anchored to verified digestibility data when published by the manufacturer.

EAA / Protein Quality

Estimates amino acid completeness. Uses actual EAA panel data when published by the manufacturer — currently 34 products in our database have verified data. Otherwise estimates from ingredients. Crude protein % on a label can be deeply misleading: plant protein isolates inflate the number while delivering fewer usable amino acids than named animal sources.

What the Ingredient Quality score actually measures

Most pet food rating tools start with a maximum score and subtract for problems. We built ours differently: every point is earned. A formula starts at zero and accumulates points across six sub-scores. The number you see represents what the formula actually delivers — not what it merely avoids.

The principle behind our scoring

A high-quality ingredient comes from nature. Quality is confirmed not just by what is present, but by what is absent — when whole-food sources adequately supply a nutrient, the corresponding synthetic form should not appear on the label.

Protein Foundation

up to 38 pts

The most heavily weighted sub-score. We evaluate the first ingredient, how many named animal proteins appear in the top three and top five, organ meat inclusion, and protein density on a dry matter basis. Named whole meats earn full credit. Organ meats — liver, kidney, heart, spleen, tripe — earn a separate bonus because they are categorically more nutrient-dense than muscle meat and represent whole-food complexity that synthetic supplements attempt to replicate. Generic ingredients and fractionated plant proteins that inflate label protein percentages are penalized.

Natural Sufficiency

up to 9 pts

The most distinctive part of our scoring. A bonus is awarded when a whole-food source of a specific nutrient is present and the corresponding synthetic form is absent. Red and organ meats supply zinc, iron, and copper abundantly — a formula with a strong organ base that also adds zinc proteinate and ferrous sulfate is telling you something: the base diet wasn't sufficient on its own. Liver supplies vitamins A, D, and B12 in their most bioavailable forms — adding synthetic versions on top is redundant. We reward formulas for the restraint of letting their ingredients do the job.

Carbohydrate Quality

up to 10 pts

Starts at the maximum and is reduced by carbohydrate load on a dry matter basis, refined starches in prominent positions, and added sugars. Whole fruits and vegetables restore up to 3 points. Dogs have no biological requirement for carbohydrates. Most commercial kibble contains 35–55% NFE (estimated carbs) on a dry matter basis — a number that never appears on any bag.

Fat Source Quality

up to 6 pts

Named animal fats and oils earn full credit. Whole meats prominent in the top five deliver fat within the natural food matrix — the highest quality fat delivery possible. Generic "animal fat" with no species specified and low-quality plant oils in prominent positions reduce the score.

Omega-3 sourcing. Evaluated on a hierarchy. Whole fish in the top ingredients delivers EPA/DHA in phospholipid form — the most bioavailable mechanism — and earns a sufficiency bonus when no separate fish oil is added. Named marine oils (fish, salmon, anchovy, herring, menhaden) come next. In low-heat formats (freeze-dried, raw frozen, fresh-cooked, air-dried, steam-dried) with tier-1 animal protein in the top three ingredients, those animal proteins themselves carry EPA/DHA natively — extrusion heat hasn't degraded it — and the formula is credited as a whole-food omega-3 source even without added fish oil. Flax ALA is treated as supplementary; it is only flagged as a gap when ALA is genuinely the sole n-3 carrier on the label, which is meaningful for kibble and plant-based formulations but not for whole-food raw or freeze-dried products where animal proteins carry the long-chain n-3s.

Safety & Additives

+4 to −20 pts

A clean formula earns 4 points. Each concern reduces it: artificial colorants (dogs are dichromatic — Red 40, Blue 2, and Yellow 5 exist purely for human shelf appeal), synthetic preservatives (BHA and BHT carry WHO possible carcinogen classifications; ethoxyquin was developed as a rubber hardener), menadione (synthetic Vitamin K3, linked to liver toxicity at elevated doses), and ingredient splitting (the same ingredient listed multiple times under different names to obscure its true rank in the formula).

Ingredient Count

0 to −8 pts

Long ingredient lists are a signal. A formula with 40+ ingredients almost always has a weak whole-food base being patched by an extended synthetic tail. Formulas with 20 or fewer ingredients earn no penalty here — simplicity is a feature.

Confidence framework — how much to trust each score

Every score reflects an inference from publicly available label data. Some products give us more to work with than others. Each of the three component scores is tagged with one of three confidence tiers — these don't change the score, they tell you how much to trust it.

verified Anchored by manufacturer-published data

The score is calibrated against verified data the manufacturer has chosen to publish — TTAA protein digestibility coefficient, full essential amino acid panel, or AAFCO feeding trial substantiation. The proxy is acting more as a sanity check than an estimate. Ingredient Quality is structural, never reaches verified.

estimated Standard label inference

Methodology working as designed against complete label data — full guaranteed analysis, named ingredients in the top five, format identifiable. Most products land here. Scores in this tier are accurate for ranking products relative to each other; absolute precision is moderate.

limited Meaningful data gaps

Generic ingredient terms in the top five (animal fat, meat by-products, animal digest), missing guaranteed-analysis values, truncated ingredient lists, or absent format information. The score still reflects what we can see, but inference quality is reduced. Treat the result as directional rather than a specific number.

Why we don't adjust the score itself. Lowering scores when confidence is low would double-count signals already factored into the calculation — generic ingredients, missing data, etc. are already penalties. Raising scores when verified data exists could be perceived as moving brands that publish data up the scoreboard. Confidence is a separate epistemic layer presented to you alongside the score, so you can extend or withdraw trust without us baking that judgment into the number.

Brand transparency — independent of formulation

Transparency measures how much a manufacturer publicly substantiates claims that an outside reader could verify. We separate disclosure from quality — a brand can publish strong data on a moderate-scoring product, or thin data on a high-scoring one — so both signals stand on their own. Six markers, evaluated in two halves.

Product-level (3 markers, automatic)

Verified protein digestibility coefficient. The manufacturer has published a measured TTAA digestibility number for this product, allowing the digestibility proxy to be anchored rather than estimated.

Full essential amino acid panel. The manufacturer has published lab-measured amino acid values, allowing protein quality to reflect actual chemistry rather than ingredient inference.

AAFCO feeding trial substantiation. The product is substantiated through an AAFCO feeding trial protocol rather than formulated to nutrient profiles. Feeding trial is the more rigorous standard but is also expensive — most products are formulated, not trialed.

Brand-level (3 markers, manually verified)

Board-certified veterinary nutritionist (DACVN) named. The brand publicly names a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition on staff. WSAVA's Global Nutrition Committee identifies this as a primary marker of nutritional rigor.

Manufacturing facility named. The brand publicly discloses where the food is made — owned facility or named co-pack — rather than anonymous third-party production.

Ingredient sourcing disclosed. The brand publicly identifies the country of origin or supplier for primary ingredients.

We only credit verified disclosure. If we have not yet evaluated a brand's public-facing disclosure, the brand-level markers show as not yet evaluated rather than as zeros — false zeros would imply absence of disclosure when we simply haven't checked. The product-level markers (the first three) are computed automatically from data we have for every product, so those are always shown.

Score bands

85–100

Strong alignment

Strong alignment with our criteria. Named whole meats and organ meats prominent. Whole-food sources supply minerals and vitamins. Clean preservation profile within our framework.

70–84

Good alignment

Good alignment with our criteria. Strong animal protein sourcing and clean preservation. May include some synthetic supplementation or moderate carbohydrate load within our framework.

50–69

Moderate alignment

Moderate alignment with our criteria. Named protein sources present. May include fractionated plant proteins, moderate starch load, or a standard synthetic mineral stack within our framework.

30–49

Lower alignment

Lower alignment with our criteria across several sub-scores. Budget or therapeutic context may make this appropriate — review trade-offs with your veterinarian.

15–29

Trade-offs identified

Significant trade-offs identified within our framework: generic protein sources, elevated carbohydrate load, synthetic preservatives, or artificial colors present.

0–14

Does not align

Does not align with our criteria across multiple dimensions. Meets AAFCO regulatory minimums. Score reflects label-based framework interpretation only.

PetLabelIQ · developed by NOBL Foods · customerservice@noblfoods.com

Side-by-side · Dive deeper

Scan up to three products — scores, costs, and plain-language summaries compared

①

Scan first product
to add it here

②

Scan second product
to add it here

③

Scan third product
to add it here

Scores are opinion-based assessments derived from public label data. ·

Your dog's profile

Set once — applied to every scan automatically

Legal & Disclaimer

Please read before using this tool

Important — Read Before Using This Tool

PetLabelIQ is an independent educational tool developed by NOBL Foods. The scores, rankings, and analysis presented here are opinion-based assessments derived from publicly available ingredient labels, guaranteed analysis panels, and manufacturer-published nutritional data. They are not veterinary advice, clinical nutrition assessments, or endorsements of any kind.

If you have questions about your dog's specific dietary needs, please consult a licensed veterinarian or board-certified veterinary nutritionist.

Scoring Methodology — What It Is and Isn't

All products — including NOBL Foods products — are evaluated using the same scoring criteria, weights, and methodology without exception. No brand receives preferential treatment in the algorithm.

Scores are directional indicators, not precise nutritional measurements. A numeric score reflects where a product lands relative to our defined criteria at a given point in time — it is not a statement of absolute nutritional value or a guarantee of any kind.

Ingredient quality scoring is based on what appears on the label as published by the manufacturer. We do not have independent access to batch testing, manufacturing processes, sourcing specifications, or quality control documentation. Two products with similar ingredient lists may perform differently in practice.

Label Data — Currency and Accuracy

Pet food formulations change. Manufacturers may reformulate products, update ingredient lists, adjust processing methods, or change suppliers without notice. PetLabelIQ scores reflect the label data in our database at the time of last update and may not reflect current product formulations.

Always verify ingredient lists against the physical product label before making feeding decisions. If you notice a discrepancy between our database and a current product label, contact us at customerservice@noblfoods.com.

For the most accurate nutritional picture of any product, we recommend requesting a current typical nutrient analysis and amino acid panel directly from the manufacturer. Responsible manufacturers publish this data upon request.

Educational — Not Diagnostic

PetLabelIQ is designed to educate and prepare dog owners for more informed conversations with veterinarians, veterinary nutritionists, and pet food manufacturers. It is not a substitute for professional guidance and does not account for your dog's individual health status, life stage, breed-specific needs, existing medical conditions, or dietary history.

Scores should be treated as a starting point for inquiry — not a final verdict. A lower-scoring product may be the clinically appropriate choice for a specific dog under veterinary supervision. A higher-scoring product may not be appropriate for every animal.

No performance guarantee is expressed or implied. PetLabelIQ does not guarantee that any product will produce specific health outcomes, coat condition, energy levels, digestive performance, or longevity.

Intellectual Property and Brand Ownership

All brand names, product names, logos, and trademarks referenced in PetLabelIQ are the property of their respective owners. Their inclusion in this database does not imply sponsorship, endorsement, affiliation, or partnership with NOBL Foods or PetLabelIQ.

Ingredient lists and guaranteed analysis data are reproduced for the purpose of consumer education and comparative nutritional analysis. This tool does not reproduce copyrighted marketing materials, brand imagery, or proprietary formulation data.

Limitation of Liability

NOBL Foods and PetLabelIQ make no representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or suitability of any information presented. Use of this tool is entirely at your own discretion.

NOBL Foods shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages arising from your use of, or reliance on, PetLabelIQ scores, rankings, or analysis — including but not limited to decisions about pet food purchasing, feeding changes, or dietary transitions.

Scores and commentary represent the independent opinion of PetLabelIQ based on publicly available label information and defined scoring criteria. They are not statements of fact about any brand's product quality, safety record, or nutritional performance.

Our Commitment

We built this tool because we believe every dog owner deserves clear, honest information about what's in the bowl — including when that information reflects unfavorably on products at any price point, including our own.

We apply the same standard to every brand. We update the database as formulations change. We welcome corrections, disputes, and direct engagement from any manufacturer who believes their product has been scored incorrectly.

Contact: customerservice@noblfoods.com

Last updated April 2026 · PetLabelIQ developed by NOBL Foods