These two get cross-shopped more than any other pair in daily nutrition, and the honest answer is that they win on different things. IM8 is the better-built formula. AG1 is the better-evidenced product. Almost every recommendation you will read online ignores one half of that. Here is the label-level comparison, at roughly the same price.
Neither of these is a meal replacement, and neither is scored here. Our 10-point score weights protein, calories and fiber because it is built to evaluate products meant to replace a meal. Running a daily supplement through it would produce a low number that looks like a verdict and tells you nothing. This comparison judges both products on what they actually claim to do: fill micronutrient gaps in a diet you are already eating. See how we rank.
Side by Side
| Metric | AG1 | IM8 |
|---|---|---|
| Price per serving | $2.63 subscription, $3.30 one-time | $2.61 quarterly, $2.97 monthly |
| Serving size | One scoop, 12g to 13g | One sachet, 11.8g |
| Calories | 40 to 50 | 20 to 40 |
| Protein | 2g | None meaningful |
| Fiber | 2g | 3g |
| Total sugars | 1g | Under 1g, no added sugar |
| Folate | L-Methylfolate (5-MTHF) | Quatrefolic (5-MTHF) |
| Vitamin B12 | Methylcobalamin | Methylcobalamin |
| Vitamin B6 | P5P | P5P plus pyridoxine HCl |
| Vitamin B2 | Standard riboflavin | Riboflavin-5-phosphate |
| Vitamin D | None | VegD3 from lichen, 1,200 to 2,000 IU |
| Vitamin K | K2 MK-7, about 29.5mcg | K1 plus K2 MK-7 |
| Magnesium | Dimagnesium malate, magnesium glycinate | Magnesium bisglycinate |
| Vitamin C | 420mg | 900mg |
| Ingredients | About 75 | 90 to 92 |
| Published trials on product | Yes, multiple RCTs | None published |
| Owner | Athletic Greens, private | Prenetics (NASDAQ: PRE) |
Where IM8 Wins: Formulation
The Vitamin D gap is the whole argument
AG1 contains no Vitamin D. IM8 contains 1,200 to 2,000 IU of VegD3, a vegan D3 sourced from lichen rather than the weaker D2 most plant-based products use.
This is the single most consequential difference between them. Vitamin D insufficiency is among the most common in the developed world, especially at higher latitudes and through winter. It is cheap and stable to include. A product positioning itself as foundational daily nutrition leaving it out is difficult to defend, and AG1 sells it as a separate paid add-on.
There is a compounding problem. AG1 includes K2 as MK-7. D3 and K2 work together in directing calcium toward bone. Including the K2 and omitting the D3 is the odd half of a pair.
IM8 uses more active forms
Both use methylated folate and methylcobalamin B12, which already puts them ahead of most of the category. IM8 goes further in two places. B2 is riboflavin-5-phosphate, the active form, which is genuinely uncommon and costs more. Magnesium is bisglycinate, among the best absorbed and gentlest on digestion, against AG1's malate and glycinate blend which is good but a step behind.
To be clear about the scale here: both are premium panels. AG1's forms are far better than Ka'Chava's folic acid, cyanocobalamin and magnesium oxide at nearly double the price. IM8 simply edges it, and then wins outright on the D3.
More fiber, more Vitamin C
IM8 has 3g of fiber to AG1's 2g, and 900mg of Vitamin C to AG1's 420mg. Neither difference is decisive. Both fiber numbers are small enough that you should be getting fiber from food, and 420mg of Vitamin C is already well above the point of diminishing returns for most people.
Where AG1 Wins: Evidence
AG1 has published randomized controlled trials. IM8 does not.
AG1 has funded and published peer-reviewed research on the finished product, including a 12-week triple-blind placebo-controlled trial in 120 healthy adults examining blood safety markers, plus further published work on nutrient adequacy and gut microbial composition. Essentially nothing else in this category has a comparable program.
Two caveats we would apply to anyone's research. The studies are company-funded, which is normal in nutrition but worth knowing. And read what each one actually measured. A trial showing no adverse effect on renal and hepatic markers is a safety finding, not a demonstration of benefit. "Clinically backed" is doing more work in the marketing than in the papers.
Even with those caveats, AG1 chose to test its product and publish the results. IM8 has not, and that is a real difference in how much you are taking on trust.
IM8 leans on credentials instead
IM8's scientific framing is "developed in collaboration with experts from Mayo Clinic, Cedars Sinai and NASA." Read that carefully. It describes where individual advisors have worked. It does not mean those institutions endorse, test or validate the product, and they have not.
That construction appears constantly in supplement marketing because it works on readers. Advisory input is worth something. It is not the same category of evidence as a published trial, and IM8 presents it in a way that invites the confusion.
Where Both Fail: Transparency
Neither product lets you check the doses on most of what it contains.
AG1 conceals about 75 ingredients inside proprietary blends, including a superfood complex at 7,388mg and the probiotic and antioxidant blends. IM8 discloses its vitamins and minerals fully, which is a point in its favour, but hides the rest across a raw superfoods and greens complex at 4,100mg, a hydration electrolytes complex at 2,500mg, an MSM blend at 1,000mg to 1,500mg, an adaptogens and mushrooms complex at 200mg, and a CRT8 complex.
Two consequences. First, a blend could be overwhelmingly its cheapest component with trace amounts of everything else and the label would look identical. We are not alleging either product does this. We are pointing out that no buyer can tell. Second, where doses are disclosed they are not always meaningful. AG1's K2 is about 29.5mcg against the 180mcg used in the frequently cited MK-7 bone density research. IM8's 200mg adaptogen and mushroom complex, split across multiple ingredients, cannot be delivering a studied dose of any one of them.
Both brands market heavily on ingredient count. Ninety nutrients is a volume claim, not a quality claim. A 27th botanical at 10mg improves the copy, not the formula.
Price
Effectively identical. AG1 is $2.63 per serving on a 30-day subscription. IM8 is $2.61 on a quarterly plan and $2.97 monthly.
The catch is commitment. IM8's better rate requires buying a 90-day supply upfront. If you are not certain you will take it daily, the monthly rate at $2.97 is the real comparison, and on that basis AG1 is slightly cheaper.
Both are expensive for what they are. Around $79 to $89 a month buys a multivitamin, a greens blend and some adaptogens. A well-formulated multivitamin with methylated B vitamins, a separate D3 and K2, and eating more vegetables covers most of the same ground for a fraction of it. What you give up is convenience, the extra blends, and in AG1's case the research program.
Which Should You Buy
Choose IM8 if you want the best-built formula, you specifically want Vitamin D and K2 covered in one product, and you are comfortable committing to a subscription. It is the better label.
Choose AG1 if you weight published evidence above formulation detail, you want the product with actual trials behind it, and you are willing to buy Vitamin D separately.
Choose neither if you need verifiable doses on the botanical content, or if what you actually want is something that replaces a meal. Both are supplements at 20 to 50 calories.
If a meal is what you are after, Huel delivers 400 calories, 40g of protein, 7g of fiber, L-Methylfolate, K2 MK-7 and full-DV Vitamin D at $2.12 per serving with every amount disclosed. Different product, different job, but it puts the price of these two in perspective.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is IM8 better than AG1?
On formulation, yes, mainly because it includes Vitamin D and uses more active forms of B2 and magnesium. On published evidence, no. AG1 has trials on the finished product and IM8 does not.
Can I take both?
There is no good reason to, and it risks pushing fat-soluble vitamins and minerals higher than intended. Because both conceal doses, stacking them is harder to do safely than it should be. Ask your doctor.
Why doesn't AG1 have Vitamin D?
It is sold separately as an add-on. Whatever the formulation reasoning, the practical result is that the product marketed as foundational nutrition leaves the most common insufficiency uncovered unless you spend more.
Does David Beckham's involvement mean anything?
For the formula, no. He is a co-founder alongside Prenetics and the formulation work sits with the advisory team. It is worth noting only because the label turned out to be strong despite the celebrity framing, which is not the usual outcome.
Are either of these meal replacements?
No. AG1 is 40 to 50 calories with 2g of protein. IM8 is 20 to 40 calories with no meaningful protein. Neither replaces food. See greens powders vs meal replacement shakes for the distinction.
Bottom Line
IM8 is the better formula and AG1 is the better-tested product, at almost exactly the same price. If you want the strongest vitamin panel and complete coverage including D3, IM8 is the clearer buy. If published research is what convinces you, AG1 earns that and IM8 has not tried.
Both hide most of their ingredient doses, both sell ingredient count as though it were quality, and neither replaces a meal. Buy either for micronutrient insurance in good forms. Do not buy either expecting it to fix a poor diet.
This comparison is for general information and is not medical advice. Talk to your doctor or a registered dietitian before starting a supplement, particularly if you are pregnant, nursing, managing a health condition or taking medication.
Full breakdowns: AG1 review and IM8 review.
