01
Nutrient ratios
The balance between nutrients worth seeking more of - fibre, potassium, magnesium - versus those worth moderating, like sodium and added sugar.
The science behind the score
FoodCompass 2.0: a score that earns its number.
Most food scores collapse everything into one axis. FoodCompass 2.0, developed at Tufts University, evaluates foods across nine independent domains so no single reformulation trick can hide weak fundamentals.
01 /FoodCompass 2.0
Multi-domain scoring instead of one-dimensional nutrition math.
The score runs from 1 to 100. Higher is better. More importantly, the domain breakdown exposes what drives the final number - so interpretation stays transparent and actionable.
Score range
1→100
Higher is better02
Food-based ingredients
Whole, recognisable ingredients count in your favour over refined fractions and ingredient isolates.
03
Processing level
NOVA feeds directly here. How a food is made affects health outcomes independently of what is in it, so it earns its own domain.
04
Specific fatty acids
Not total fat - the type. The balance of omega-3s, omega-6s, saturated fats, and whether industrial trans fats are present.
05
Vitamins & minerals
Micronutrient density per calorie. Naturally-occurring micronutrients are weighted more favourably than added fortification.
06
Protein quality
Not just quantity - the completeness of the amino acid profile and the quality of the source it comes from.
07
Fibre & wholegrains
Fibre in its intact, unrefined form. Added fibre in an otherwise processed product is scored quite differently here.
08
Phytochemicals
Polyphenols, carotenoids, flavonoids - bioactive plant compounds invisible on standard nutrition labels, but significant.
09
Additives
Emulsifiers, preservatives, artificial colours, sweeteners. Ingredients with credible health concerns are penalised directly.
↓
Cardiovascular disease risk
Validated across large population datasets
↓
Type 2 diabetes incidence
Prospective cohort studies
↓
All-cause mortality
After controlling for overall dietary quality
Why this is the score we chose
We reviewed many scoring systems. Most were either too simplistic (nutrient-only) or too opaque (proprietary formulas you cannot interrogate). FoodCompass 2.0 is published, peer-reviewed, and transparent. Because it is multi-dimensional, sub-scores are as useful as the overall number. A food can be high-protein yet still score poorly if it is ultra-processed, additive-heavy, and low in fibre. That is the point. Nutrons shows both the total score and domain profile so you can see what drives the number, not just what it is.