The Brand Files

Showing 41 of 41

1. 1A90Charlotte's Web90/100The most transparent brand we've scored, and our first A: a publicly traded (SEC/SEDAR), USDA-certified-organic, B-Corp company that grows its own hemp and posts named-lab, full-panel, QR-accessible batch COAs. The only drags are old and resolved — a 2017 FDA letter and a dismissed consumer suit.Read the file →Visit Charlotte's Web ↗Official site ↗
2. 2A-85Cornbread Hemp85/100One of the most transparency-forward CBD brands in the country: USDA-certified organic (via Ecocert), Kentucky-grown, a 'Flower-Only' full-spectrum approach, per-batch COAs from a NAMED third-party lab (Kaycha), and ownership that's verifiable down to SEC filings. Held short of the full-audit 90-point A by self-asserted cGMP, uneven label-accuracy in independent testing, and a live BBB profile of D- with unanswered complaints.Read the file →Visit Cornbread Hemp ↗Official site ↗
3. 3B83Joy Organics83/100A respected, family-founded organic CBD brand with genuine strengths: USDA-certified-organic SKUs, American hemp, full-panel per-batch COAs with QR lookup, named family owners, and a clean regulatory record with an A+ accredited BBB. A solid B — held short of the top tier because its official lab page doesn't name the lab and its manufacturing model isn't fully disclosed.Read the file →Visit Joy Organics ↗Official site ↗
4. 4B83Lazarus Naturals83/100Genuinely elite product transparency — a named ISO-17025/NELAP lab (Columbia Laboratories), a public batch portal, its own Oregon farm, USDA-organic via a named certifier (Oregon Tilth), and an independent best-in-industry transparency ranking — at value prices with a real assistance program. Held to a B by a settled data-breach class action (no adjudication of liability), a settled Prop 65 notice, a 2.4 Glassdoor, a B- BBB with unanswered complaints, and headline claims (cGMP, employee ownership, B Corp status) that are self-asserted or no longer publicly confirmed.Read the file →Visit Lazarus Naturals ↗Official site ↗
5. 5B82Cycling Frog82/100Maker Lazarus Naturals owns its Oregon hemp farm, extracts on-site, and makes Cycling Frog in its own cGMP plant — using naturally-occurring delta-9, not chemical conversion — with named ISO-accredited labs and per-batch COAs. The only real drags are soft and off-product: a weak Glassdoor and a settled data-breach suit.Read the file →Visit Cycling Frog ↗Official site ↗
6. 6B81Hometown Hero81/100A veteran-owned brand that grows its own Texas hemp, posts full-panel batch COAs, and went to court to defend delta-8 — held back mainly by a self-asserted (not third-party-certified) GMP claim and thin public workforce data.Read the file →Visit Hometown Hero ↗Official site ↗
7. 7B803Chi80/100A pioneer that makes its own product in an audited GMP lab and is fully open about who's behind it — held back by weak workplace reviews and middling customer ratings.Read the file →Visit 3Chi ↗Official site ↗
8. 8B80Bluebird Botanicals80/100A testing-transparency veteran with best-in-cohort lab disclosure: a named lab (Botanacor), a public batch/lot COA database, Eurofins-audited cGMP, B Corp status, and a founder with a deep, verifiable industry-leadership record. Pulled to a low B by the January 2026 cbdMD acquisition (which introduces ownership and go-forward opacity) and a few unconfirmed items — organic certifier, the post-deal leadership, and its 'triple-test' marketing.Read the file →Visit Bluebird Botanicals ↗Official site ↗
9. 9B80CBDistillery80/100A value-priced CBD heavyweight that's more transparent than it looks: named ISO-accredited labs (ACS, Botanacor), NSF cGMP and ISO 9001, US Hemp Authority certification, a public-company parent (Village Farms), and a clean FDA record with an A+ accredited BBB. Held short of an A mainly by thinner sourcing disclosure.Read the file →Visit CBDistillery ↗Official site ↗
10. 10C79Happi79/100The best-verified testing in the THC drinks tier: a named ISO-17025 lab (Anresco), a full contaminant panel, and a primary-verified COA that matches the label. It also names its regional co-packers, which almost no beverage peer does, and its clean FDA and FTC record is a searched fact. Held to a C because the corporate entity is traceable only through SEC filings the site never mentions, a 2021 trademark suit's outcome is undisclosed, and the company has said nothing publicly about the 2026 ban.Read the file →Visit Happi ↗Official site ↗
11. 11C78Wynk78/100One of the strongest manufacturing stories in these files: self-manufactured with no co-packers, an owned plant with patented dosing technology, a named NSF cGMP extract supplier, and full-panel batch COAs with a QR on every can. Held to a C because the testing lab is not named anywhere public, funding is undisclosed, and the independent review footprint is thin.Read the file →Visit Wynk ↗Official site ↗
12. 12C77Crescent Canna77/100Peer-best testing for a drinks brand: 300-plus public per-batch COAs from a named ISO-17025 lab, and a full-panel report we primary-verified showed honest dosing (4.51mg measured against a 5mg label). Held to a C by unnamed farms, a hybrid own-facility-plus-partner manufacturing setup with an undisclosed split, funding that is not reliably disclosed, and a thin third-party review footprint.Read the file →Visit Crescent Canna ↗Official site ↗
13. 13C75Koi CBD75/100A genuinely transparency-forward veteran: named family founders, a public ISO-accredited lab, and an independent Top-10 transparency ranking. A solid C — held back by two FDA warning letters (a 2019 marketing-claims letter and an individual 2023 delta-8 adulteration letter, both agency allegations), two old consumer suits, and independent tests showing it over-labels potency about a quarter of the time.Read the file →Visit Koi CBD ↗Official site ↗
14. 14C71Cann71/100Excellent, accredited, full-panel lab reports and unusually open funding — undercut by a 2025 prosecutor settlement over THC labels that tested off by more than 10%, and a manufacturer it won't name.Read the file →Visit Cann ↗Official site ↗
15. 15C71Mood71/100A huge, well-marketed catalog with named labs and a traceable founder — dragged down by manufacturing opacity and a serious but unproven COA-related lawsuit allegation.Read the file →Visit Mood ↗Official site ↗
16. 16C70cbdMD70/100A credentialed, publicly traded CBD brand — NSF cGMP, US Hemp Authority, full-panel QR/batch COAs, and full SEC financial disclosure — held to a mid-C by an unnamed testing lab, a disclosed going-concern doubt after a near-delisting, and legacy SEC matters attached to former leadership (not the company).Read the file →Visit cbdMD ↗Official site ↗
17. 17C70TRE House70/100Genuinely strong, named-lab, full-panel, batch-specific testing and a clean formal record — sitting next to unnamed founders, a blank 'manufacturer' field on its own COA, and a roughly two-star consumer reputation.Read the file →Visit TRE House ↗Official site ↗
18. 18C70Urb70/100The most ownership-transparent brand we've scored — a wholly-owned subsidiary of a public, SEC-reporting company, with strong COA access — pulled back to a C by a self-contradictory sourcing story, an unnamed lab on the COAs, and a settled class action over delta-9 potency labeling.Read the file →Visit Urb ↗Official site ↗
19. 19C70Wyld70/100The best-selling edible in America — bootstrapped, US-made, and traceable to named founders — but it gates its lab reports behind an email request, leaves its testing labs unnamed, and has had two labeling recalls.Read the file →Visit Wyld ↗Official site ↗
20. 20D68Extract Labs68/100Real transparency infrastructure — a named, verifiable veteran founder, a public batch database, SEC-documented ownership, genuine USDA-organic SKUs, registry-verified OU Kosher, and an independently confirmed 2% label variance — attached to a verified adverse record: a 2022 FTC cease-and-desist demand over COVID-19 claims (warning-stage, with no follow-on action found), a 2025 voluntary Class II FDA recall of 60,000+ gummies for undeclared peanut, a 2.8 Trustpilot and 2.2 Glassdoor, and a current testing lab it no longer names.Read the file →Visit Extract Labs ↗Official site ↗
21. 21C67CBDfx67/100One of the bigger, more transparent CBD names — a named entity and founders, public COAs with QR traceability, CO2 extraction, and an A+ BBB. Held to a C by unnamed testing labs, self-asserted (not certified) 'cGMP' and 'organic,' and a 2022 FDA warning letter.Read the file →Visit CBDfx ↗Official site ↗
22. 22C67Green Roads67/100A pharmacist-founded CBD veteran with real lab transparency — per-batch QR COAs, full panels, and an independent test that passed label accuracy — offset by a 2017 FDA warning letter, dismissed mislabeling suits, thin sourcing disclosure, no third-party facility certification, and a thrice-changed ownership chain.Read the file →Visit Green Roads ↗Official site ↗
23. 23C66Medterra66/100A mass-retail CBD brand with real credentials — NSF GMP, US Hemp Authority, QR-batch COAs, Kentucky hemp, and a strong Trustpilot — pulled to a mid-C by a 'F' BBB rating, testing labs it doesn't clearly name, a panel that openly skips glyphosate, and a still-unclosed merger.Read the file →Visit Medterra ↗Official site ↗
24. 24D62Delta Extrax62/100Real ISO-accredited lab reports and a big product range — undercut by white-label opacity, an 'F' BBB rating, a 2025 state attorney-general lawsuit (unproven), and a lab page that even hosted a different company's COA.Read the file →Visit Delta Extrax ↗Official site ↗
25. 25D61Delta Munchies61/100Genuinely good lab transparency — a named, ISO-accredited lab, full-panel COAs, and QR batch verification — held to a D by a 2023 FDA/FTC warning letter over child-appealing 'copycat' packaging and a wall of undisclosed sourcing and manufacturing detail.Read the file →Visit Delta Munchies ↗Official site ↗
26. 26D61NuLeaf Naturals61/100A respected 2014 CBD veteran whose product testing is genuinely strong (named ISO-17025 lab, per-batch COAs, B Corp) — but whose disclosure transparency has fallen behind its reputation: it names no founder, doesn't acknowledge on its own site that public company High Tide owns 80% of it, conflates 'organically grown' with USDA-organic, and carries a D- unaccredited BBB with a ~2.0 Trustpilot. A D, kept off the floor by its lab program.Read the file →Visit NuLeaf Naturals ↗Official site ↗
27. 27D60Brez60/100A viral, founder-led THC + lion's mane tonic with real growth and a named, public founder — held to a D by footer-buried, potency-skewed lab reports, a co-packer it never voluntarily named, and a live class action over its auto-renewing subscriptions.Read the file →Visit Brez ↗Official site ↗
28. 28D60Exhale Wellness60/100A popular, well-reviewed brand (8,600+ Trustpilot reviews at ~4 stars) that's still radically opaque — it won't name its testing lab, its manufacturer, or its own founders, lists three different addresses, and leans on paid 'best-of' PR.Read the file →Visit Exhale Wellness ↗Official site ↗
29. 29D60MoonWlkr60/100An anonymous-looking delta-8 brand with a fact pattern almost nobody would guess: it is owned by NASDAQ-listed Upexi, Inc. and makes its own products in an SEC-disclosed facility, a genuine rarity, yet none of that appears on its own site. Real ISO-lab COAs are undercut by unnamed labs, Google-Drive hosting, and no batch lookup, and the 'Colorado organic farms' claim is unsubstantiated. A verified-clean regulatory record keeps this a D rather than worse.Read the file →Visit MoonWlkr ↗Official site ↗
30. 30D58Galaxy Treats58/100Better lab transparency than its candy branding suggests — named, accredited labs and a clean enforcement record — but a wall of undisclosed basics (no legal entity, no facility, no GMP, no sourcing, no headcount) keeps it at a D.Read the file →Visit Galaxy Treats ↗Official site ↗
31. 31F56Just Delta56/100More traceable than most — a named founder, a known operator (Just Brands), and a NASDAQ-listed acquisition history — and well-liked on Trustpilot with no FDA action. But weak product-integrity transparency (self-asserted certs, an unnamed lab on the delta-8 line, independent-audit COA gaps) and a cluster of CBD-overstatement lawsuits land it at a high F.Read the file →Visit Just Delta ↗Official site ↗
32. 32F54STIIIZY54/100America's best-selling cannabis brand is legitimate, regulated, and operationally open (named founders, a known parent, 61 dispensaries, an anti-counterfeit system) — but a confirmed Category-I pesticide recall, a ~380k-person data breach, and a thin voluntary-COA trail (especially on the hemp line) drag its transparency-and-record score to a high F.Read the file →Visit STIIIZY ↗Official site ↗
33. 33F52Binoid52/100Legitimate products and a traceable, founder-run company — but an 'F' BBB rating with dozens of unanswered complaints, a 2.4-star Trustpilot, lab reports that name no lab, and marketing claims that don't match the public record.Read the file →Visit Binoid ↗Official site ↗
34. 34F52Cookies52/100An iconic, legitimate, globally licensed cannabis lifestyle brand — but measured on our consumer-transparency rubric it scores low: it publishes no brand-level COAs (testing is dispensary/state-level), its manufacturing is licensed out to partners, and its public record is dominated by a dense web of unproven partner/investor disputes. A rubric-limited grade, not a verdict on product quality.Read the file →
35. 35F46Hidden Hills46/100A real, commercially significant smoke-shop THC brand with credible named manufacturing partners and two named principals — held to an F by weak lab transparency (no named lab, no batch/QR portal), a documented counterfeit problem, an 'F' BBB rating, and an open (unadjudicated) Prop 65 notice.Read the file →
36. 36F38Cali Extrax38/100A brand that most of the internet attributes to the wrong company. Cali Extrax is its own Wyoming-formed LLC, not Delta Extrax or Savage Enterprises, and it discloses almost nothing: no entity on its site, a contact page that 404s, no manufacturing or sourcing story, and managers listed at Wyoming mail-forwarding addresses. Its named-lab COA library (PharmLabs San Diego, ISO-17025) is real credit, but the panels are potency-only, and its Scrip7 tablets ship with a COA that proves only what is not in them. A pending unfair-competition suit, in which it and the Delta Extrax parties are separate co-defendants, rounds out an F.Read the file →Visit Cali Extrax ↗Official site ↗
37. 37F38Litto38/100A well-known but radically opaque hemp-THC vape brand: no disclosed legal entity, anonymous founders, a disputed founding year, an unnamed testing lab, and COA pages that are sometimes empty — against a documented counterfeit problem. No adjudicated regulatory actions found, which is the main thing keeping it off the bottom.Read the file →Visit Litto ↗Official site ↗
38. 38F36Torch36/100A hugely popular but radically anonymous smoke-shop vape brand: no named founders, no named factory, and — most importantly for a disposable vape — COAs that never name the lab and don't confirm a full heavy-metal and residual-solvent panel. A real counterfeit problem and a BBB 'F' round it out.Read the file →
39. 39F35Diamond CBD35/100A real, identifiable company whose corporate structure is unusually well-documented (it was a public filer) — but with the most adverse verifiable record in these files and below-best-practice lab transparency. The F reflects that record and those gaps, framed precisely: nearly everything adverse is historical, disputed, or settled.Read the file →Visit Diamond CBD ↗Official site ↗
40. 40F34ELYXR34/100An anonymous-by-design storefront: the operating company (JXK Enterprises, Inc. of Miami) is discoverable only through an FDA recall notice, a BBB profile, and a Florida state filing, never through the site itself. A real, named ISO-17025 lab (KCA) keeps the testing pillar off the floor, but the panels are potency-only, one of the company's own posted COAs is over the federal delta-9 threshold, the site's 'FDA-approved facility' claim is false as stated, and the record is anchored by a May 2026 FDA-publicized voluntary recall for an undeclared prescription drug. Framed precisely throughout: the recall was voluntary, no adverse events had been reported, and the verified absences (no warning letters, no lawsuits found) are counted in ELYXR's favor.Read the file →Visit ELYXR ↗Official site ↗
41. 41F33Cake33/100Not one company but a contested trademark buried under counterfeits — the legitimate owner won a landmark federal case, but there's no single official site, no open named-lab COAs, and a journalist found one circulating 'Cake' COA that appeared to be forged. As a buyer, you often can't verify what you have.Read the file →Visit Cake ↗Official site ↗