Whey is the better protein on every quality metric anyone has measured. Pea has less leucine, fewer essential amino acids per gram, and a lower protein-quality score. And in the only two trials that put them head to head in training people, pea kept up anyway — because at a full dose, the gap stops being the thing that limits you. So: if you avoid dairy, pea is a legitimate choice. Take enough of it and buy from a brand that publishes testing.
We sell neither. We're also about to disclose the funding on both sides of this argument, because the best trial supporting pea was paid for by a pea-protein manufacturer — and a lot of the pages answering this question are published by companies that sell plant protein.
Key takeaways
- Whey wins on paper: 43% essential amino acids and 11.0% leucine by protein content, against pea's 30% and roughly 7%.
- It didn't win in practice. Twelve weeks, 137 finishers, 50 g/day: pea +13.4%, whey +15.3%, placebo +10.7% biceps thickness — P = 0.09, not significant.
- The 'DIAAS 1.09 vs 0.82' figures all over the internet aren't in the paper everyone cites. The real numbers are 125 and 73 — on one reference pattern, in pigs, from single samples.
- Plant protein is not the cleaner option on the current testing: 77% of plant-based powders exceeded California's Prop 65 lead limit against 28% of whey products.
- Whichever you pick, dose and third-party testing matter more than the source. Educational information, not medical advice.
Pea protein vs. whey at a glance
Every figure in this table is sourced in the sections below, with the study model and its limits named.
| Pea protein | Whey protein | |
|---|---|---|
| Source | Yellow peas (Pisum sativum) | Milk, the liquid fraction left after cheesemaking |
| All nine essential amino acids? | Yes | Yes |
| Essential amino acids, % of protein | 30% | 43% |
| Leucine, % of protein | ~7% | 11.0% |
| First-limiting amino acid | Sulfur amino acids (methionine + cysteine) | Histidine |
| DIAAS, over-3s reference pattern, single samples | 73 | 125 (isolate) |
| DIAAS, pooled datasets, 0.5–3y reference pattern | 70 | 85 |
| 12-week muscle thickness vs placebo | +13.4% vs +10.7% | +15.3% vs +10.7% |
| Lead: % over Prop 65, 2025 report | 77% (plant-based) | 28% |
| Lactose | None | Present in concentrate; minimal in isolate |
| Allergen | Legume (pea allergy is uncommon) | Milk |
| Taste and texture | Earthier, slightly gritty; needs flavoring | Thinner, mixes cleaner |
| How to compare cost | Dollars per gram of protein | Dollars per gram of protein |
| Best for | Vegans, dairy avoiders, milk allergy | Anyone without a dairy reason to avoid it |
| Worst for | Anyone taking a half-dose and expecting whey results | Milk allergy; strict plant-based diets |
Half the pages answering this question sell one of the answers
Worth knowing before you read anyone's verdict, including ours. Ritual sells a 20 g pea protein shake. Daily Harvest, a plant-based food company, publishes its own "Whey Protein vs. Pea Protein" comparison. Brands with a stake in the answer write a lot of the pages that answer it. Neither is doing anything improper by writing about protein — but a comparison written by a party to the comparison is a different document than one written by someone with no dog in it.
And here's the tell that makes our point better than we could. Ritual states that it adds L-methionine to its pea protein to complete the amino acid profile. Methionine is precisely the amino acid the protein-quality data says pea is short of. A pea protein company fortifying its own product with the missing sulfur amino acid is the best available confirmation that the gap below is real.
The amino-acid gap, in numbers — and the number everyone gets wrong
Most pages say pea is "slightly lower in some amino acids" and move on. It isn't slight, and the numbers exist.
The cleanest measurement comes from a Maastricht University lab that bought 35 commercial protein powders and put them all through the same analysis. Measured as a percentage of total protein, whey came out at 43% essential amino acids and 11.0% leucine; pea came out at 30% essential amino acids.1 Pea's leucine works out to roughly 7% of its protein — the paper prints 5.7 g of leucine per 100 g of pea powder at 80% protein content, which is above the WHO/FAO/UNU adult leucine requirement of 5.9%, but well under whey.1
If you see "whey is 8.6% leucine, pea is 5.7%" attributed to this paper, those are the right numbers off the wrong row. That table reports grams per 100 g of raw powder, not percentages of protein — its own footnote says so.1 When you're comparing two proteins, the per-gram-of-protein basis is the one that answers your question, and on that basis the paper prints whey at 11.0% leucine.1 The gap ends up a similar size either way. But a figure quoted with the wrong label is how a number survives years of copying without anyone opening the paper, so check the units before you trust a protein comparison — including this one.
Two details in that dataset cut against the marketing on both sides. First, pea powder was more protein-dense than whey powder in this sample set — 80% protein against 78% — so pea is not a weaker powder.1 The entire gap is in the amino acid profile, not the protein content. Second, pea's deficit is specific: 0.3 g of methionine and 0.2 g of cysteine per 100 g, against whey's 1.8 g and 0.8 g.1 That's the sulfur amino acid shortfall, and it's why pea scores where it does.
Pea's strength is the mirror image: 4.7 g of lysine per 100 g against brown rice's 1.9 g.1 Hold on to that — it's the whole basis for blends.
The caveats: three pea samples and three whey samples, tryptophan not measured.1
What DIAAS actually says, and why the numbers you've seen disagree
DIAAS is the current standard for protein quality: it scores a protein against a reference amino acid pattern after measuring how much of each amino acid is actually absorbed. The catch is that "the reference pattern" isn't one thing, and the score moves depending on which you use.
The study everyone cites is Mathai, Liu and Stein (2017), which measured eight proteins in growing pigs.2 Scored against the pattern for children over 36 months, adolescents and adults, it gives whey protein isolate 125 (limited by histidine), whey protein concentrate 133, pea protein concentrate 73 (limited by the sulfur amino acids), soy protein isolate 98 and wheat 54.23 Under the FAO's classification, a score of 100 or more is an "excellent" protein source, 75–99 is "good," and below 75 no protein-quality claim should be made at all.5 Pea's 73 lands just under that line.
Now the part nobody prints. A 2020 review pooled every available dataset instead of relying on one sample: 22 datasets for pea, 12 for whey. Scored against the 0.5-to-3-year-old reference pattern, it puts pea at 70 and whey at 85.4 Same two proteins, and the gap between them is 15 points instead of 52.
Before anyone uses that to argue pea is whey's near-equal, here is what actually moved — because it's two separate things, and neither of them is a molecule.
Most of it is the reference pattern, and it cuts both proteins. The 73-and-125 pair is scored against the pattern for over-3s; the 70-and-85 pair against the pattern for 0.5-to-3-year-olds, which demands more of several amino acids. Score the pig study's own samples against that younger pattern and whey isolate falls from 125 to 100 while pea concentrate falls from 73 to 62.2 So pea's score isn't stable across patterns either — that impression comes entirely from putting two different patterns side by side.
The rest is which whey you pool. The review's own reading of its low whey numbers is that they aren't all the same grade of product: multiple references produced whey DIAAS values of 78 to 88, "implying that purity and the recovery process can be significant."4 Three of the five sources it drew whey data from are pig feed-composition tables — CVB, the NRC swine requirements and the INRA-AFZ tables — rather than studies of supplement-grade isolate.4 Pooling is a fairer estimate of "whey" in general; it is not an estimate of the tub you'd buy. What is consistent across both analyses is the limiting amino acid — histidine for whey, the sulfur amino acids for pea, every time.34
The honest reading is narrower than either side wants. Pea's sulfur amino acid deficit is real and turns up in every dataset. Whey's 125 is the best case — the purest grade, on the friendliest pattern — and an average whey scored for a toddler looks a lot less spectacular. A review of protein-quality methods makes the general point plainly: different requirement patterns and animal models explain why published DIAAS values for the same proteins disagree.5
Three things follow. The "whey isolate 1.09, pea 0.82" figures circulating online are not in the paper they're attributed to — that paper prints 125 and 73.23 The pea sample that scored 73 was a 54%-protein concentrate, not the 80%-plus isolate you actually buy.3 And all of it is a pig ileal-digestibility model on single commercial samples.2 It's the best data available. It is not a human outcome.
But in the training trials, pea kept up
Two studies have put pea and whey head to head in people who train. Both found nothing between them. Here is each in full, funding included.
Babault 2015 enrolled 161 men aged 18–35 and finished with 137 (47 pea, 46 whey, 44 placebo) after 12 weeks of upper-body resistance training on 25 g twice daily.6 Biceps thickness rose 13.4 ± 10.8% on pea, 15.3 ± 12.7% on whey and 10.7 ± 8.6% on placebo — a difference that only approached significance at P = 0.09.6 A pre-specified sensitivity analysis of the 68 participants below the sample's median starting strength (1RM under 25 kg) found pea at +20.2 ± 12.3% beat placebo at +8.6 ± 7.3% (P < 0.05) while whey at +15.6 ± 13.5% did not.6 That subgroup was 17 people on pea against 31 on whey, which is thin ground for a headline.6
The trial tested NUTRALYS, a branded pea protein isolate, and its competing-interests statement reads: "Roquette provided financial support to conduct the study. The funders have no role in the study design, data collection and analysis or preparation of the manuscript. LGD, MHS and CLM, three authors, have an affiliation (employment) to the commercial funders of this research."6 Roquette manufactures NUTRALYS. So the strongest trial supporting pea protein was funded by the maker of the pea protein it tested, with three of the funder's employees among the authors. That doesn't make the result wrong, and we've reported it in full above. It means you should weight it accordingly — which you can only do if someone tells you.
Banaszek 2019 is the independent one. Fifteen people (8 men, 7 women) took 24 g of whey or pea before and after training through eight weeks of high-intensity functional training. Both groups got stronger on the back squat and deadlift, and the authors concluded that "ingestion of whey and pea protein produce similar outcomes in measurements of body composition, muscle thickness, force production, WOD performance and strength."7 They name the sample size as a clear limitation themselves, and the paper states it received no external funding.7
Reconciling a real gap with a null result
This is the part that gets skipped, so let's do it properly.
Two small trials finding no difference is weak evidence of equivalence, not proof of it. Neither was powered to detect a modest real difference, and Babault's 15.3% versus 13.4% is exactly the size of gap a study this small would miss. If you ran it in a thousand people, whey might well edge ahead.
The interpretation we'd offer — and it is an interpretation, not a finding — is that at these doses the amino-acid gap stopped being the binding constraint. Both trials supplied roughly 50 g of supplemental protein a day on top of normal food.67 Protein quality matters most when protein is scarce. Give someone plenty of it and the profile differences get absorbed by the sheer volume. That's the practical takeaway for anyone buying pea: the research that supports you also used a full, generous dose.
What about muscle protein synthesis?
Whey's acute laboratory advantage is real, and it is routinely oversold in this comparison.
In the classic study, 18 young men drank whey hydrolysate, casein or soy matched for essential amino acids. Muscle protein synthesis after whey was about 93% greater than casein at rest and about 122% greater after resistance exercise.8 Those are the numbers you see quoted — and they are whey against casein, another dairy protein.
Against the plant protein in the study, the margins were much smaller: whey was about 18% above soy at rest, which did not reach significance (P = 0.067), and 31% above soy after exercise.8 Six people per group. And pea wasn't in the study at all.
So: whey produces a big acute muscle-protein-synthesis response against a slow dairy protein, a modest one against a plant protein, and it's a measurement of a few hours in a lab that did not translate into more muscle in either training trial. Our full evidence review of whey protein grades that argument on its own terms.
Is plant protein cleaner? The testing says the opposite
This is the section no page selling plant protein can publish.
The Clean Label Project's 2024–25 protein powder report tested 160 products from 70 brands and collected 35,862 data points. Products exceeding California's Proposition 65 lead limit: organic 79% (41% of them at more than twice the limit), plant-based 77%, chocolate-flavored 65%, whey 28% and collagen 26%.9 Plant-based powders averaged roughly five times the cadmium of whey, and chocolate averaged 110 times the cadmium of vanilla.9 The report's own wording on its headline figure is that "47% of products exceeded at least one federal or state regulatory set for safety, including CA Prop 65" — not a lead-specific number, though it has been reported that way.9
The mechanism is agronomy, not scandal. Plants draw heavy metals out of soil and water, and concentrating plant protein concentrates whatever the plant took up. Cocoa is a known cadmium accumulator, which is the chocolate finding in one line.
It is not peer-reviewed. It's a report from an advocacy nonprofit, published outside the scientific literature.9
Proposition 65 is a California warning threshold, not a federal safety limit. It sits far below federal action levels — by the industry's own account, a 1,000-fold safety factor below the level at which no harmful effect has been observed, and it triggers a warning label rather than a ban.10 Exceeding it means a label is required in one state, not that a product is unsafe.
Industry bodies publicly disputed it. The Council for Responsible Nutrition argued that reports like this one "often lack critical context and risk misleading consumers," that "the detection of contaminants … does not inherently equate to a health risk," and that the methodology "warrants scrutiny" because CLP "has not provided sufficient transparency regarding how products were selected, the criteria for contamination thresholds, or the interpretive framework for their findings." It called on CLP to publish in a peer-reviewed journal.10 CRN is a trade association for the supplement industry, so it has its own interest here. Both of those things can be true.
The actionable line is the same whichever protein you pick: this is what third-party certification and published batch testing exist for. Buy from a brand that tests, and check the claim rather than the label — see the note under our picks below for how that goes wrong.
If you're going pea, how to close the gap
Three levers, in order of how much they matter.
1. Take a full dose. The gap is in amino-acid density, so more powder narrows it directly. The International Society of Sports Nutrition's per-serving guidance is 0.25 g/kg of bodyweight or an absolute 20–40 g, aiming for 700–3,000 mg of leucine — and that guidance was written around high-quality protein.11 Pea's lower leucine share is an argument for the top of that range, not the bottom. Both trials that found pea worked used about 50 g a day.67
2. Blend, if you want the arithmetic on your side. Pea is short on sulfur amino acids and rich in lysine; grains are the reverse.14 Combining them raises the calculated score — the pooled analysis shows a 60/40 pea-and-wheat blend reaching 85 where pea alone sits at 70.4 That's the honest strength of the claim, and the honest limit: it's an amino-acid score, not a muscle outcome. No trial has shown a pea-and-rice or pea-and-grain blend beats pea alone for building muscle.
3. Fix your total daily protein first, because it outranks the source. The largest meta-analysis on protein supplementation and resistance training pooled 49 studies and 1,863 participants and identified a breakpoint at 1.62 g/kg/day, past which more protein added nothing to fat-free mass gains.12 Two caveats worth more than the headline: that breakpoint came from a 42-study-arm, 723-participant subset, not the full dataset, and its 95% confidence interval runs from 1.03 to 2.20 g/kg/day with the underlying regression missing significance at p = 0.079.12 Treat 1.6 g/kg as a good target, not a cliff edge. Our muscle-growth guide puts that in context against everything else in the category.
One aside for this specific audience: vegetarians and vegans start with lower muscle creatine stores and tend to respond most to supplementation, which makes creatine an unusually good-value addition to a plant-based diet.
Taste, texture, and how to compare price properly
Pea is earthier and slightly gritty, which is why so much of it is sold chocolate-flavored. Whey mixes thinner and cleaner and takes flavoring more gracefully. This is genuinely the difference that decides it for a lot of people, and the one that doesn't show up in any study.
On price, compare dollars per gram of protein, never per tub. Scoop sizes differ between products, so tub prices aren't comparable. The math is straightforward: price ÷ (servings × grams of protein per serving).
That comparison also settles the "which has more protein" question, and the answer surprises people. Taking two products from the same brand at the same 5 lb size and 76 servings, read from the manufacturer's own pages on 25 July 2026: the pea product lists 27 g of protein per serving, the whey product 25 g. The pea powder delivers more protein per scoop. It just delivers a different amino acid mix inside those grams — which is the entire story of this comparison in one line.
Which should you buy?
One row here refuses to pick, and one row picks against the thing that pays us. Both are deliberate.
| Use case | Verdict | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Vegan, dairy-free, or milk allergy | → Pea | The only option of the two, and the trials say it does the job. Take a full dose |
| Lactose intolerant only | → Whey isolate, not pea | A processing problem with a cheaper fix than switching protein sources |
| Best measured protein quality | → Whey | Higher essential amino acids (43% vs 30%), higher leucine, higher DIAAS on both reference patterns |
| Muscle gain over a training block | → No winner | Two head-to-head trials found no significant difference — both small, one manufacturer-funded |
| Lowest contaminant risk | → Whey, on current testing | 28% vs 77% Prop 65 lead exceedance in the 2025 report, with the caveats above |
| Sustainability or ethics | → Pea, and we're not your source | A legitimate reason to choose pea, but it's an environmental and ethical question this evidence review isn't qualified to settle |
| Budget | → Compare dollars per gram of protein | Scoop sizes differ; tub prices aren't comparable |
| Drug-tested athlete | → Whichever is third-party certified | Certification matters more than the source. Check the certifier's registry, not the label |
A note on lactose, because the row above compresses it: lactose intolerance and milk allergy are different conditions. Lactose intolerance is difficulty digesting milk sugar; a milk allergy is an immune system disorder.13 If it's the sugar, whey isolate solves it — isolate vs. concentrate covers that choice. If it's the protein, you need to leave dairy entirely.
If you want one clean representative of each side, these are the two we'd point a friend to — same brand, same 5 lb size, one ingredient each, unflavored. That isolates the protein source as the variable instead of confounding it with flavor systems, and it makes the price comparison close to apples-to-apples. We may earn a commission if you buy through these links, at no extra cost to you, and it never changes which protein we recommend for which job.
Our pick for vegan, dairy-free, and milk-allergy readers. We may earn a commission if you buy through this link, at no extra cost to you — it never affects our verdicts.
Our pick if you have no dairy reason to avoid whey. We may earn a commission if you buy through this link, at no extra cost to you — it never affects our verdicts.
Both Amazon listings carry "NSF Certified" in the product title, and the brand's own product pages show an "NSF Contents Certified" badge. A search of NSF's official dietary supplement registry on 25 July 2026 returns seven certified finished products for this manufacturer — six pre-workout flavors and a creatine — and a search for the trade names "Naked Whey" and "Naked Pea" returns no matching products at all. Neither powder is in NSF's Certified for Sport database either.14 "NSF Certified" and "NSF Certified for Sport" are separate programs, and a claim in a listing title is marketing copy until a registry backs it.
What both powders do carry is a certification the listing title doesn't mention: Naked Whey and Naked Pea are both listed on LGC's Informed Choice registry, which tests finished-product lots for banned substances.15 That's a real program, and it's the reason we still recommend these two. The lesson isn't that the brand doesn't test — it's that the badge on the listing and the certification you can actually verify were two different things. Whatever you buy, search the certifier's own registry by product name first.
Frequently asked questions
Yes. In a 12-week trial, pea and whey produced statistically indistinguishable gains in muscle thickness alongside resistance training, and an 8-week trial found no differences on any measure. Both were small studies, and one was funded by a pea-protein manufacturer.
The bottom line
Whey is the better protein and pea is a perfectly good one. That's the whole answer, and neither half of it sells a category.
If you have any reason to avoid dairy, buy pea, take a full 25–40 g dose rather than a token scoop, and stop worrying about the amino-acid tables — the people in the trials who did that grew muscle. If you have no reason to avoid dairy, whey is cheaper per gram of protein, mixes better, scores higher on every quality metric, and came out cleaner in the contaminant testing. And whichever you buy, get your daily total right first and check the certification claim on the registry rather than the label. Those two habits will do more for you than picking the winner of this argument.
Related reading
- Whey vs. casein: which one, and when
- Whey isolate vs. concentrate: is the upgrade worth it?
- Supplements for muscle growth: what actually works
References
- Gorissen SHM, Crombag JJR, Senden JMG, et al. Protein content and amino acid composition of commercially available plant-based protein isolates. Amino Acids. 2018;50(12):1685–1695. (Essential amino acids as % of total protein: whey 43%, pea 30%; leucine: whey 11.0%; Table 1 values are g per 100 g raw material; protein content pea 80%, whey 78%.) pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Mathai JK, Liu Y, Stein HH. Values for digestible indispensable amino acid scores (DIAAS) for some dairy and plant proteins may better describe protein quality than values calculated using the concept for protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores (PDCAAS). Br J Nutr. 2017;117(4):490–499. (Growing-pig model; single commercial samples. Table 7, 3 years and above: WPI 125 (His), WPC 133 (His), PPC 73 (SAA), SPI 98 (SAA), soya flour 105, wheat 54 (Lys). Table 6, 6-to-36-month pattern: WPI 100 (His), PPC 62 (SAA).) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Poutanen KS, Kårlund AO, Gómez-Gallego C, et al. Grains — a major source of sustainable protein for health. Nutr Rev. 2022;80(6):1648–1663. (Reproduces the Mathai DIAAS table: whey protein isolate 125 (His), whey protein concentrate 133 (His), pea protein concentrate 73 (SAA), soy protein isolate 98; calculated for children older than 36 months, adolescents and adults, using pig as the model organism. Pea sample protein content 54%.) pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Herreman L, Nommensen P, Pennings B, Laus MC. Comprehensive overview of the quality of plant- and animal-sourced proteins based on the digestible indispensable amino acid score. Food Sci Nutr. 2020;8(10):5379–5391. (Pooled: pea DIAAS 70 ± 12.3 from 22 datasets, limiting Met+Cys; whey 85 ± 10.8 from 12 datasets, limiting His; 0.5-to-3-year reference pattern. Whey datasets drawn from CVB 2016, Gottlob 2006, Mathai 2017, NRC 2012 and Sauvant 2004; the paper notes whey values of 78–88 across references, "implying that purity and the recovery process can be significant." Pea/wheat 60:40 blend 85.) pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Antunes IC, Bexiga R, Pinto C, et al. Cow's Milk in Human Nutrition and the Emergence of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives. Foods. 2022;12(1):99. (FAO DIAAS classification thresholds; notes that differing requirement patterns and animal models explain divergent published DIAAS values.) pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Babault N, Païzis C, Deley G, Guérin-Deremaux L, Saniez MH, Lefranc-Millot C, Allaert FA. Pea proteins oral supplementation promotes muscle thickness gains during resistance training: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial vs. whey protein. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2015;12:3. (161 men enrolled, 137 analysed; 25 g twice daily for 12 weeks; funded by Roquette, with three author employees of the funder.) pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Banaszek A, Townsend JR, Bender D, Vantrease WC, Marshall AC, Johnson KD. The effects of whey vs. pea protein on physical adaptations following 8 weeks of high-intensity functional training (HIFT): a pilot study. Sports (Basel). 2019;7(1):12. (n = 15; 24 g twice daily; no external funding.) pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Tang JE, Moore DR, Kujbida GW, Tarnopolsky MA, Phillips SM. Ingestion of whey hydrolysate, casein, or soy protein isolate: effects on mixed muscle protein synthesis at rest and following resistance exercise in young men. J Appl Physiol. 2009;107(3):987–992. (n = 6 per group; matched 10 g essential amino acids.) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Clean Label Project. 2024–25 Protein Powder Category Report, published 9 January 2025. (160 products, 70 brands, 35,862 data points; testing 2023–24. Not peer-reviewed.) cleanlabelproject.org
- Council for Responsible Nutrition. Ensuring safety and transparency in dietary supplements: a response to the Clean Label Project's protein powder report. (Industry trade-association rebuttal.) crnusa.org
- Jäger R, Kerksick CM, Campbell BI, et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2017;14:20. (0.25 g/kg or 20–40 g per dose; 700–3,000 mg leucine; 1.4–2.0 g/kg/day.) pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Morton RW, Murphy KT, McKellar SR, et al. A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(6):376–384. (49 studies, 1,863 participants; break point 1.62 g/kg/day (95% CI 1.03–2.20) from a 42-arm, 723-participant subset, p = 0.079.) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Definition & Facts for Lactose Intolerance. ("Lactose intolerance is different from a milk allergy. A milk allergy is an immune system disorder.") niddk.nih.gov
- NSF International. Official Product Listings, NSF/ANSI Standard 173 Dietary Supplements, and the NSF Certified for Sport product database. (Both searched 25 July 2026: the listing for Naked Whey, Inc returns 7 certified finished products — six Naked Energy pre-workout flavors and NAKED CREATINE; the trade names "Naked Whey" and "Naked Pea" return no matching products.) info.nsf.org
- LGC. Informed Choice certified product register. (Searched 25 July 2026: Naked Nutrition is listed with Naked Whey, Less Naked Whey, Naked Pea, Less Naked Pea, Naked Mass and Less Naked Mass.) choice.wetestyoutrust.com