Neuriva vs. Prevagen (I Tried Both): Which Wins In 2025?

Brain fog at 3 PM. Forgetting names five seconds after hearing them. Walking into a room and completely blanking on why you're there.

If you've found yourself Googling "brain supplements that actually work," you've probably stumbled across Neuriva and Prevagen. Two of the most heavily marketed cognitive supplements promising to fix your mental decline.

But do they deliver, or are you just funding someone's yacht with your desperation for sharper focus?

Quick Verdict

Skip both. Neuriva gives you underdosed ingredients with theoretical benefits that rarely translate to real results, while Prevagen is built around a jellyfish protein that probably gets destroyed in your stomach before reaching your brain.

Backed by a clinical trial so questionable that the FTC sued over the advertising claims.

If you're serious about cognitive support, Mind Lab Pro is the only supplement in this conversation worth your money.

It delivers 11 research-backed nootropics at proper therapeutic doses instead of one or two questionable ingredients, targets multiple brain pathways simultaneously, and comes from a company that prioritizes science over marketing hype.

===>Check Latest Mind Lab Pro Deals<===

What is Neuriva?

Neuriva is a brain health supplement manufactured by Reckitt, a major consumer health company.

Launched in 2019, it positions itself as a scientifically-backed cognitive support product available over-the-counter in pharmacies and retail stores across the United States.

The supplement comes in several formulations, with the core products containing two primary active ingredients: coffee fruit extract (neurofactor) and phosphatidylserine.

Neuriva markets itself as supporting five key indicators of brain performance: focus, memory, learning, accuracy, and concentration.

The brand has expanded into multiple product lines, including Neuriva Original, Neuriva Plus (with added B vitamins), Neuriva Ultra (with additional ingredients), and specialized formulations for sleep and de-stress support.

Pros

• Manufactured by established consumer health company with quality control standards
• Contains phosphatidylserine, which has some research support for cognitive function
• Available in multiple formulations for different needs
• Widely accessible in major retail chains
• Generally well-tolerated with minimal reported side effects

Cons

• Limited clinical trials specifically on the Neuriva formula itself
• Coffee fruit extract research is preliminary with small sample sizes
• Higher price point compared to individual ingredient supplements
• Some formulations contain B vitamins that many people already get adequately through diet
• Marketing claims extend beyond what current research definitively supports

What is Prevagen?

Prevagen is a memory supplement developed by Quincy Bioscience, a biotechnology company founded in 2004.

The product's primary active ingredient is apoaequorin, a protein originally derived from jellyfish that the company claims supports brain function.

Launched in 2007, Prevagen became one of the most recognizable brain health supplements in the United States, heavily advertised on television and available in pharmacies nationwide.

The product comes in regular and extra strength formulations, as well as a professional formula.

The supplement has been the subject of significant controversy, including a 2017 lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission and New York Attorney General challenging its advertising claims. Despite this, it remains a top-selling brain health supplement.

Pros

• Long market presence (since 2007) with established brand recognition
• Available in multiple strength options
• The company has conducted some clinical research on the product
• Generally considered safe with few reported adverse effects
• Widely stocked in major pharmacy chains

Cons

• Subject to FTC lawsuit over allegedly deceptive advertising claims
• The original clinical trial showed mixed results, with primary endpoints not met
• Apoaequorin's ability to survive digestion and cross the blood-brain barrier is scientifically questionable
• Significantly more expensive than many alternative supplements
• Independent scientific support for efficacy claims is limited
• Critics argue the mechanism of action is biologically implausible

Neuriva vs. Prevagen: Main Differences

Benefits

Neuriva targets five specific areas of brain performance: focus, memory, learning, accuracy, and concentration. It sounds impressive on paper. A comprehensive approach to cognitive enhancement.

But here's the thing: casting a wide net across five different cognitive domains also means you're diluting whatever effects the supplement might have.

Instead of doing one thing well, you're potentially doing five things marginally. The broad claims make it harder to measure whether the product is actually delivering on any specific promise.

Prevagen zeroes in almost exclusively on memory support. The narrow focus could be seen as refreshing honesty. At least they're not promising to solve every cognitive issue you've ever had.

But it also means you're putting all your faith (and money) into a single benefit that the clinical research doesn't convincingly support.

If memory improvement is all you're after and the product doesn't deliver, you've got nothing to fall back on.

The practical difference comes down to marketing strategy more than real-world results.

Neuriva positions itself as a daily cognitive enhancer for various mental demands, which sounds great until you realize there's limited evidence it actually enhances much of anything.

Prevagen sells itself primarily as a memory preservation tool for aging adults, banking on people's fear of cognitive decline to move product.

Neither supplement offers benefits that are well-established or particularly impressive based on the available evidence.

You're essentially choosing between vague promises across multiple areas (Neuriva) or a single promise that federal regulators have challenged (Prevagen). Not exactly a win-win situation.

Ingredients

Here's where things get interesting. And by interesting, I mean questionable. Neuriva's formula centers on two ingredients with actual scientific pedigrees: coffee fruit extract (neurofactor) and phosphatidylserine.

Phosphatidylserine is a phospholipid that's naturally present in your brain cell membranes, and it's been studied in numerous clinical trials for cognitive function.

Coffee fruit extract contains polyphenols that may support brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), essentially a protein that helps brain cells survive and grow.

Sounds promising, right? Except the research on coffee fruit extract is extremely preliminary.

We're talking small studies with limited follow-up. And while phosphatidylserine has some research support, the effective doses used in studies often exceed what you're getting in a single Neuriva capsule.

You're essentially getting ingredients that work in theory, at doses that might not matter in practice.

Prevagen's star ingredient is apoaequorin, a protein originally found in glowing jellyfish. The company claims it binds to calcium in brain cells to support function.

But here's the catch that makes scientists more than skeptical. It makes them openly dismissive: apoaequorin is a protein, which means your digestive system should theoretically break it down into amino acids before it ever reaches your brain.

The company argues some makes it through intact, but this defies basic biology and remains hotly contested by independent researchers.

It's essentially a jellyfish protein that probably gets destroyed in your stomach, marketed as a brain supplement. The biological plausibility is so low that you have to wonder how it ever made it to market.

The ingredient comparison is like choosing between underdosed compounds with some scientific merit (Neuriva) and a biologically implausible jellyfish protein (Prevagen). Neither inspires confidence.

Effectiveness

This is where both products face a harsh reality check. Neuriva's effectiveness claims rest on ingredients that have shown promise in separate studies.

However, those studies used different doses and populations, and didn't actually test the Neuriva formulation itself. It's like saying a cake will be delicious because flour and sugar taste good separately. The logic doesn't quite hold up.

The few studies Reckitt has conducted on the actual Neuriva formula are company-sponsored and not particularly robust.

You're left wondering if the modest benefits some users report are genuine or just the result of spending $40 and really wanting to feel smarter.

Prevagen's effectiveness claims rest on even shakier ground. The Madison Memory Study, the company's flagship clinical trial, didn't meet its primary endpoints.

Read that again: the main measures of success in their own study failed.

The positive findings emerged only when researchers began slicing the data into subgroups, a statistical approach that raises red flags for anyone familiar with clinical trials.

It's the research equivalent of moving the goalposts after you've already missed the shot.

User experiences vary wildly for both products, which tells you something important: whatever effects exist are subtle enough that people can't reliably distinguish them from placebo.

Neuriva users sometimes report improved focus, but "sometimes" and "report" are doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.

Prevagen reviews are even more polarized—people either credit it with life-changing memory improvement or dismiss it as expensive snake oil.

The effectiveness reality check: Neuriva might have a minor effect, if at all, and Prevagen likely does nothing for most people, despite its higher cost.

Neither delivers the kind of reliable, measurable cognitive enhancement that would justify the price tag or the marketing hype.

Lawsuits

This is where the contrast becomes stark. Neuriva faced a class-action lawsuit in 2020 alleging false advertising claims about its brain health benefits.

The plaintiffs argued that the company's marketing overstated the scientific evidence supporting the product's effectiveness.

Reckitt settled the lawsuit in 2023 for $3.95 million without admitting wrongdoing and agreed to modify some of its advertising language.

While not ideal, this represents a relatively standard consumer protection issue in the supplement industry.

Prevagen's legal troubles are considerably more serious and damaging.

In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission and the New York Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Quincy Bioscience, alleging that the company made false and unsubstantiated claims about Prevagen's ability to improve memory, provide cognitive benefits, and support brain health.

The lawsuit specifically challenged the company's reliance on the Madison Memory Study, arguing that the study actually showed Prevagen was no more effective than placebo for improving memory.

The case dragged on for years. In 2020, a federal judge dismissed parts of the lawsuit but allowed other claims to proceed.

The legal battle continued, with Quincy Bioscience fighting the charges while maintaining its product's efficacy. As of the latest developments, aspects of this case remain unresolved, and the company has faced ongoing scrutiny over its marketing practices.

What makes Prevagen's situation worse isn't just the lawsuit itself—it's that the FTC specifically accused the company of cherry-picking data from its own study to create misleading advertising.

That's fundamentally different from the typical supplement marketing exaggeration. We're talking about federal regulators saying the company's own research didn't support what they were telling consumers.

The legal scorecard clearly favors Neuriva. A settled class-action suit with modified advertising versus ongoing federal allegations of deceptive marketing practices.

If legal credibility matters to you (and it probably should), Neuriva comes out significantly cleaner.

Clinical Research

Neuriva's clinical research situation is mixed. The individual ingredients have research support.

Phosphatidylserine has been studied in multiple trials, and coffee fruit extract has some emerging (though limited) evidence for supporting BDNF levels.

What's missing is comprehensive research on the specific Neuriva formulation itself. Reckitt has conducted some clinical work on the formula, but it's not as extensive as you might hope.

Prevagen conducted a clinical trial called the Madison Memory Study, which the company frequently cites in its marketing.

Problem is, when you actually read the published study, it paints a different picture than the advertising. The trial didn't meet its primary cognitive endpoints.

The positive results only appeared when researchers looked at subgroups of participants. An approach that raises methodological concerns. Independent researchers have criticized both the study design and the interpretation of results.

Even more damaging: the FTC and New York Attorney General sued Quincy Bioscience in 2017, specifically challenging the scientific basis for Prevagen's advertising claims.

The lawsuit argued the company's own clinical trial didn't support the marketing promises. That's not a good look.

Neuriva wins this category by default. While its clinical evidence isn't overwhelming, it's built on ingredients with legitimate research histories rather than a contested company-sponsored study with questionable findings.

Side Effects

Both supplements are generally well-tolerated, which is legitimately one of their strengths. Neuriva's side effects are minimal and rare.

Some users report mild digestive discomfort or headaches when starting, but these typically resolve.

Since the ingredients are relatively natural compounds (a fruit extract and a phospholipid your body already produces), serious adverse reactions are uncommon.

Prevagen also has a favorable safety profile in most users. However, it's worth noting that the FDA received reports of serious adverse events potentially linked to Prevagen, including seizures, strokes, and other significant health issues.

The company disputes any causal connection, and these represent a tiny fraction of users, but the reports exist in the FDA's database.

For most people, side effects are limited to minor issues like headache or dizziness.

The slight edge goes to Neuriva here, simply because its ingredients have longer safety track records in supplement form without the concerning adverse event reports that have shadowed Prevagen.

User Reviews

User reviews for both products follow a predictable pattern: passionate advocates, disappointed critics, and a lot of people in the middle who aren't quite sure if they feel different or if it's placebo effect.

Neuriva reviews tend toward cautious optimism. Users frequently mention improved focus during work, better mental clarity in the afternoon (when brain fog typically hits), and enhanced ability to juggle multiple tasks.

The improvements are usually described as subtle rather than dramatic—you're not suddenly developing a photographic memory, but you might notice you're slightly sharper during that 3 PM meeting.

The complaints typically center on price and the time it takes to notice effects (often 4-6 weeks).

Prevagen reviews are more polarized. You've got the true believers who credit it with significant memory improvement, and you've got the skeptics who spent $40-60 for what they describe as expensive placebo.

The middle ground is less populated. Interestingly, many negative reviews specifically mention feeling misled by the advertising after doing research on the actual clinical trial results.

The review landscape slightly favors Neuriva. Not because it has universally glowing feedback, but because user experiences seem more consistently moderate and realistic rather than wildly divergent.

Price

Neither supplement is cheap, but your wallet will feel the difference. Neuriva typically runs $30-45 for a 30-day supply depending on the formulation, with the basic version at the lower end and Neuriva Plus or Ultra at the higher end.

You can find deals at major retailers or by buying larger bottles, bringing the monthly cost down to around $25-35 if you shop smart.

Prevagen is notably more expensive, generally priced at $40-60 for a 30-day supply of the regular strength version.

The Extra Strength formula pushes toward $60-70. Even with sales or coupons, you're rarely getting below $35 per month, and many users pay significantly more.

Here's the thing: when you're paying premium prices for supplements with limited clinical evidence, every dollar matters.

Neuriva gives you a multi-ingredient formula targeting multiple cognitive domains for less money than Prevagen charges for its single-ingredient, memory-focused approach.

The price difference isn't huge in absolute terms, maybe $10 to $ 20 per month, but over a year, that's $120 to $240. Combined with Neuriva's more scientifically plausible ingredients and broader benefits, it offers better value for your money.

===>Check Latest Mind Lab Pro Deals<===

My Experience Taking Neuriva & Prevagen

I'll be honest. I wanted these supplements to work. I really did. The idea of popping a pill and suddenly having sharper focus or better memory is seductive, especially when you're staring down another afternoon of brain fog and forgotten passwords.

I tried Neuriva first, mostly because the ingredient list seemed less ridiculous than jellyfish protein.

I followed the directions religiously, took it every morning with breakfast, and waited for the cognitive enhancement to kick in.

Week one: nothing. Week two: still nothing, but I convinced myself I felt slightly more alert around 3 PM.

Week three: I realized that "slightly more alert" was probably just the coffee I'd started drinking at 2:30 because I was frustrated the supplement wasn't working.

By week four, I was keeping a journal to track any changes because surely I must be missing something. Nope.

My focus was the same. My memory was the same. The only thing that changed was my bank account, which was $35 lighter.

I gave it six weeks total because I'm stubborn and had already spent the money. The most noticeable effect? A mild headache in week two that may or may not have been related.

Then I switched to Prevagen, partially for this comparison and partially because I thought maybe I just needed a different approach.

The price stung. $50 for a month's supply felt obscene for what I was getting. I took it consistently for eight weeks, figuring if I was going to waste money, I might as well waste it thoroughly.

The experience was somehow even more disappointing than Neuriva. At least with Neuriva, I could occasionally trick myself into thinking I felt something.

With Prevagen, it was radio silence from day one. No improved memory. No sharper recall. No magical ability to remember where I left my keys.

Just a daily reminder that I'd spent $50 on what seemed to be an elaborate placebo.

Around week five, I actually forgot to take Prevagen for three days straight. Which felt like a cosmic joke about a memory supplement.

When I realized it, I couldn't detect any difference in how I felt. That probably tells you everything you need to know.

The worst part wasn't that they didn't work. It was the nagging feeling that I'd fallen for marketing hype despite knowing better. I'd read the studies.

I knew the evidence was thin. But the commercials are persuasive, and hope is a powerful drug. More powerful, apparently, than anything in these bottles.

By the end of my trial period with both supplements, I'd spent over $200 and had exactly zero cognitive improvements to show for it.

My focus was the same. My memory was the same. The only thing I'd gained was a healthy skepticism toward brain supplement marketing and a lighter wallet.

Would I recommend either based on my experience? Absolutely not. 

===>Check Latest Mind Lab Pro Deals<===