BiteRated

Methodology

Every weight, threshold, and penalty — published

A score you can't audit is just an opinion. The BiteRated rubric is a documented set of weights, thresholds, and penalties that converts a product's ingredients and nutrient data into a 0–100 score. It is grounded in peer-reviewed canine nutrition science, AAFCO nutrient profiles, and NRC recommended allowances.

AAFCO (the Association of American Feed Control Officials) is a body that publishes the nutrient profiles a pet food must meet to be labeled complete and balanced. NRC (the National Research Council) is a scientific organization whose recommended allowances define the reference nutrient levels for dogs.

The two-axis architecture

The two-axis architecture is a scoring design that separates two things most rating systems blur together: how good a product appears to be, and how much evidence supports that appearance. Collapsing both into a single number hides that distinction, so BiteRated keeps them on separate axes.

The quality scoreis a 0–100 rating that measures a dog food product's nutritional quality based on the available data. The evidence confidence rating is a separate measure that reflects how complete and reliable that data is. Because the two are independent, 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

BiteRated score bands and their meaning
Score rangeInterpretation
90–100Outstanding — named proteins, full disclosure, strong evidence base
75–89Excellent — minor deductions, solid nutritional foundation
60–74Acceptable — meets standards but carries documented compromises
40–59Below standard — multiple penalties for fillers or vague sourcing
0–39Poor — 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.

“We publish the whole rubric because a score you can't check is just an opinion in a lab coat. If a nutritionist wants to argue with a weight we chose, good — that's the whole point.”
Manan Buch, Founder of BiteRated