Niagen®, our patented form of nicotinamide riboside (or NR) and NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide) are two of the most prominent NAD+ precursors on the market today. While it’s in our interest to promote NR, it’s also important to note that NMN does fall short as a dietary supplement when it comes to quality, scientific rigor, and regulatory acceptance.

In recent years, NAD+ has come to the forefront of research on ageing, health, and disease. However, the popularity of NAD+ research has also opened the door for misinformation about NAD+ and NAD+ precursors.

For example, an NAD+ precursor is a “building block” for the cell to build NAD+. However, orally consumed NMN is technically a precursor to nicotinamide riboside ("NR") and must be converted to NR before it can pass through cell membranes. Inside the cell, the NR converts back to NMN, and then to NAD+. Given that NR can enter cells, this distinction is important to make when it comes to efficiency.

So, which one should you trust? The evidence overwhelmingly favors NR (aka Niagen), but here’s a breakdown to adequately assess both NAD+ precursors in detail.

Almost Twice as Much Ongoing Clinical Research Uses Niagen over NMN

According to Clinicaltrials.gov, a government-sponsored database of human clinical studies, as well as the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry, there are more than 40 ongoing or completed studies involving Niagen versus more than 20 for NMN.

These numbers show double the growing amount of research behind Niagen over NMN to investigate the various health benefits of raising NAD+ levels in humans.

Niagen Has 10+ Published Human Clinical Studies Demonstrating That It Effectively Increases NAD+ and/or NAD+ Flux, While NMN Has 5+

To date, a collection of human clinical studies comprehensively shows that Niagen effectively increases NAD+ and/or NAD+ flux (the rate at which cells make and use NAD+). The continued use of Niagen in these trials further reflects the trust that the precursor commands in the scientific community.

Nicotinamide riboside can enter cells directly. NMN cannot.

A collection of published studies conducted by some of the field’s leading researchers demonstrates that NMN cannot enter cells directly; rather, it must be converted to NR first.

One such study (published in Nature Communications in 2016) on NMN’s metabolism in mammalian cells concluded NMN cannot directly enter the cell. Simply put, NR enters cells directly; NMN does not.

NR and NMN are chemically identical, with the exception of one phosphate group present on NMN. The study demonstrates that this additional phosphate group must be removed from NMN, converting it into nicotinamide riboside before it can enter the cell.

However, a study published in Nature Metabolism in 2019 claimed to have identified a transport protein for NMN in the small intestine of mice. But researchers Mark S. Schmidt and Charles Brenner questioned the validity of this claim, stating there is an absence of evidence for this NMN transporter.

NAD+ Supplements Aren’t Nearly as Effective as NR

Similarly, NAD+ supplementation provides no advantage over nicotinamide riboside because the NAD+ molecule is too large and contains multiple phosphate groups. NAD+ must be broken down into individual parts before entering the cell; then, it reforms back into NAD+.

When It Comes to Quality, Niagen Is Far More Reliable

While NMN products may be more ubiquitous in the marketplace, that doesn’t mean they are of good quality. Our R&D team conducted testing on a variety of NMN products ordered via Amazon. Most of them did not even contain NMN, or did not meet their label claims.

Niagen, on the other hand, undergoes rigorous testing, and has an extensive research program behind it. Niagen is a patented form of NR (and we also own the patents), so it’s far more reliable in terms of tolerability, potency, and consistency. Tru Niagen and Niagen undergo 22 different tests before they are released to the market. And Niagen is manufactured in an ISO-accredited facility under GMP conditions.

The fact that Niagen is the chosen form of NR that many researchers use also attests to its quality. While NMN studies are out there, they aren’t done with a consistent brand or source.

Niagen Has International Regulatory Acceptance as a Top-Quality Supplement

Niagen has been:

Successfully notified to the FDA as a New Dietary Ingredient two times and has been notified to the FDA as Generally Recognized as Safe
Authorized as a permissible ingredient for use in complementary medicines by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)
Authorized as a novel food for use in supplements, foods for special medical purposes, total diet replacement for weight control, and meal replacements for the adult population by the European Commission
Authorized for use in foods for special medical purposes by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)
Authorized as a natural health product by Health Canada (Tru Niagen)
Authorized for use in medical foods by the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA)
Authorized for use in dietary supplements by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in Turkey

Natural health products with NMN have been authorized for use in Canada. That’s it.

Summary Comparison of NR and NMN

We covered a lot in this comparison. And perhaps you’re still mulling it over. Below is a brief summary of our comparison to help simplify the current science and validity of both ingredients.

The Choice Is Clear

Niagen provides a sound basis for confidence. The studies behind it are overwhelmingly positive, and the regulatory acceptances are ironclad.