Methodology

Every weight, threshold, and penalty — published

A score you can't audit is just an opinion. The Snifos rubric is fully documented and grounded in peer-reviewed canine nutrition science, AAFCO nutrient profiles, and NRC recommended allowances.

The two-axis architecture

Most rating systems collapse everything into one number, which hides a critical distinction: how good a product appears to be, and how much evidence supports that appearance. Snifos separates these into two axes. The quality score (0–100) measures nutritional quality based on the available data. The evidence confidence rating measures how complete and reliable that data is. A product with limited disclosure can never quietly earn a top score.

Ingredient quality analysis

Named animal proteins (e.g. "deboned chicken") score higher than generic terms (e.g. "meat meal" or "animal by-product").
Position on the ingredient panel matters: protein-first formulas are weighted favorably.
Fillers with low nutritional density — corn gluten, wheat middlings — incur documented penalties.
Artificial preservatives (BHA, BHT, ethoxyquin) and artificial colors trigger fixed deductions.

Nutritional adequacy

Guaranteed analysis values are compared against AAFCO nutrient profiles for the stated life stage.
Where available, full nutrient panels are checked against NRC recommended allowances.
Protein, fat, fiber, and micronutrient balance are scored against thresholds documented in the public rubric.
Products that substantiate claims with feeding trials receive a documented bonus.

Evidence confidence (second axis)

A separate confidence rating reflects how complete the available data is for each product.
Full nutrient disclosure and published digestibility data raise confidence.
Marketing claims without supporting documentation lower confidence — not quality — keeping the two axes honest.
Low-confidence scores are clearly flagged so a number is never mistaken for certainty.

Score bands

Snifos score bands and their meaning
Score range	Interpretation
90–100	Exceptional — named proteins, full disclosure, strong evidence base
75–89	Very good — minor deductions, solid nutritional foundation
60–74	Adequate — meets standards but carries documented compromises
40–59	Below average — multiple penalties for fillers or vague sourcing
0–39	Poor — significant nutritional or transparency concerns

Independence policy

No brand pays for a score — not to improve it, expedite it, or remove it. Scores are updated when formulations change, and every revision is logged. If we make a mistake, we correct it publicly and document the change.

Create a free account to browse scores