GRNS keeps its reviews close to home. On 17 September 2026, the brand's own reviews page showed 4.8 out of 5 from 202 reviews, and a retailer listing held two more. The Trustpilot page ranking for this search belongs to gruns.co, a different company, in a different country, selling gummies. So the footprint is small, warm, and mostly on pages the brand controls. In a category where the label decides value, that matters more than the stars do.
TL;DR
- Most GRNS reviews sit on the brand's own site: 4.8 from 202 at capture. Read a brand's page for themes, not for a verdict, because the seller chooses what appears and in what order.
- The Trustpilot profile ranking for this query is gruns.co, a separate company based in the United States. Check the domain before you read the sentiment.
- Reviews describe taste, mixing, repeat orders and service. They cannot tell you the amount of each ingredient, whether there is a register entry to check, or the price per serve in your currency.
- The ACCC names the tells of a fake review: bursts over a short window, near-identical wording, no detail, and undisclosed incentives. Incentives must be disclosed and offered regardless of sentiment.
- Dietitians say greens powders are not necessary and do not replace a balanced diet, so judge one on what its label publishes.
- GRNS is a greens-first powder: 40+ whole-food ingredients, an 8 g scoop, batch tested for banned substances. Hoola is a listed daily formula with 27 actives and every quantity on the ARTG.
Where do GRNS reviews actually live?
GRNS reviews sit in three places we could find: the brand's own page, one retailer listing, and a Trustpilot profile that turns out to belong to a different company. The brand's own reviews page carried 202 reviews and a 4.8 average on 17 September 2026, with filters for gut health, energy, focus, skin, taste and more, and sorts that include most recent and lowest rating. A retailer listing for a 250 g pack showed 5.0 from two reviews, one written a year ago and one two years ago, on a product marked unavailable when we checked. A Trustpilot profile with 2,406 reviews and a 4.6 score also ranked for the query, and it belongs to gruns.co, whose profile lists a Beaverton, United States address and describes gummies built to replace chalky powders.
The brand's own page is the best place to read what customers say, and the worst place to stop reading. The first screen showed nine five-star reviews, from customers in Pakenham, Stockton, Forest Glen, Preston, Biloela, Little Mountain, Mermaid Beach and Maiden Gully, plus one from Norwich in the United Kingdom. The same page carries the brand's community blocks: a "Trusted By the Best" panel quoting a board certified nutritionist, an AFLW player, and a professional basketball player who is also an Australian Olympian, then named everyday performers with their own story pages. Those are ambassador and partnership placements, usually labelled as such, sitting on the same surface as customer reviews.
That arrangement is normal for a brand page, ours included. What it means is that you are reading a curated set from people who stayed, presented by the party with an interest in the outcome. Treat it as experience reporting, not as a verdict.
Platforms add context that a brand page cannot. Trustpilot states plainly that it does not fact-check reviews and that it labels a review Verified when it can confirm a business interaction took place. Its profile for the similarly named gummy company also shows a company that invites customers to review and replies to 69% of negative reviews. Labels, reply habits and total counts are the honest part of any review platform, and they are worth more than the score. No Trustpilot profile for grns.com.au appeared in the results we captured, so a platform applying its own published review rules to this brand was not among them.
What do those reviews say?
They describe the drink and the habit: taste, mixing, mornings, gut comfort and service. The loudest themes in the reviews we captured were taste and mixability ("Great taste and easy to mix", Matthew C. in Stockton, NSW), flavour against other powders ("I've tried several green powders and this one tastes the best by far", Jade M., Mermaid Beach, QLD), and steadier days ("Haven't felt this good in years", Geoffrey W., Little Mountain, QLD, who wrote about steady energy levels and not bombing out in the afternoons). The welcome kit lands well too; one reviewer in Norwich asked for a replacement glass bottle after smashing his own. Service gets a mention as well, from a customer whose account issue was sorted swiftly.
Every one of those is one person describing their own weeks. There is no comparison group, no way to check what else changed in their routine, and no way for you to verify the claim. Reviews are strong evidence about taste, tolerance and how a company treats people after the sale. They are weak evidence about what a formula does.
The brand's own page pushes further. It headlines 4.8 out of 5 from "12,000+ Health Enthusiasts", and its FAQ says most people feel something shift within 72 hours, compounding over the first week or two. Those are the seller's claims about its customers rather than an independent measurement, and no review count verifies them. Read the individual reviews, keep the summary at arm's length.
What can a review never tell you?
A review can tell you how a product felt to one person. It cannot tell you what is in the scoop, in what amount, or what you are really paying per serve.
Three gaps are worth naming, because each one decides whether the money is well spent.
The first is quantity. GRNS lists 40+ whole-food ingredients and states on the same page that it uses no proprietary blends and no fillers. What the page does not print in text is a number for each ingredient, and the nutrition panels appear as images. On any greens powder, amounts are the check that separates a real formulation from a long list, because an ingredient with no figure beside it proves very little. Food and nutrition scientist Emma Beckett's advice when choosing between products is to look for the majority ingredient being actual vegetable powder, with recognisable vegetables listed, and price alone tells you nothing: 100 grams of green powder runs from about $12 at a supermarket to about $45 at a beauty and skincare store.
The second is listing status. A listed medicine carries an AUST L number, and the public register shows the formulation, which turns the label into something you can check. Searching the register for a brand name or a number is quick, free and public. A food-type powder does not have to hold a listing, so the search tells you what is public rather than what is good. No AUST L number appeared on the GRNS pages we captured on 17 September 2026.
The third is price in your own currency. GRNS's store displayed US dollars during our capture and prompts visitors to switch to local currency at the top of the page. The Australian price we could verify was a retailer's: 250 g listed at RRP $79.99, on sale at $69.99, marked unavailable on the day we checked. Hoola publishes A$125 for a 30 day supply, A$99 a month on subscription and A$65 for the 15 day pouch. Convert before you compare, and use the plan you will actually keep rather than a first order with a welcome kit attached. We walked through the price maths in what GRNS costs against a listed subscription.
How do you spot incentivised, gifted or copied reviews?
Read how the reviews were collected, and what the page admits about them, rather than how warm they sound. Australia's consumer regulator lists the mechanical tells: a spike in highly positive or negative reviews in a short stretch, many reviews from the same email or IP address, similar reviewer names, generic reviews without specific detail about the product, and reviews written in similar language to other reviews for the same product.
Then ask the money questions.
- Incentives. Offering a discount or a free gift for a review risks misleading people and breaching the law unless the incentive is disclosed and applies whether the review is positive or negative.
- Undisclosed relationships. A review written by family, employees or someone paid by the business has to state that connection, and a review from someone who never used the product is misleading however it reads.
- Proof of purchase. Some platforms require it, and the ACCC notes those may be more reliable than platforms that do not.
- Platform economics. Where a platform and a brand have a commercial relationship that could affect the overall rating, it has to be disclosed, or the page risks misleading buyers.
- The total behind the score. The ACCC's example of good practice is showing how many reviews a rating is based on, such as three stars from 24 reviews. That is why 4.8 from 202 and 5.0 from two are different kinds of information, and why a retailer's two-review average is worth exactly as much as two reviews.
- A shop's own guide. GoodnessMe stocks GRNS and describes it in its own greens guide as one of the most efficient products it has found, which is a retailer recommending its own shelf rather than a customer account.
One habit beats the rest on this query: check the domain on the review page before you read the sentiment. One of the review results for "grns reviews" is a profile for gruns.co, in the United States, and a reader who skims will take 2,406 gummy reviews as 2,406 reviews of an Australian greens powder.
What should you check before you buy?
Four checks cover most of the risk, and all four are public.
- Ingredient amounts. Look for a number next to every active ingredient. If a formula leans on a blend name instead, you cannot check the amount of anything inside it, and the dose claim is unfalsifiable.
- Australian listing. Search the ARTG for the brand name or the AUST L number. Hoola is a listed medicine, AUST L 508472, with all 27 actives and their quantities on the public register.
- Caffeine and timing. Hoola's label carries 100 mg per 10 g serve, and GRNS's product page states that it is added caffeine free. That difference changes when in the day each product belongs.
- Price per serve, in one currency, before gifts. Work the figure out from the plan you will keep, and ignore the welcome kit while you do it.
| What to check | Hoola | GRNS |
|---|---|---|
| Australian listing | Listed medicine, AUST L 508472, with the formulation on the public register | No AUST L number appeared on the pages we captured; search the register yourself |
| Ingredient amounts | 27 actives, every amount per serve published | 40+ whole-food ingredients listed, with no proprietary blends and no fillers stated; no per-ingredient figures in the page text we captured |
| Serving and format | 10 g powder scoop, once a day | 8 g scoop, one heaped teaspoon, once or twice daily per the brand's FAQ, 30 servings a container |
| Caffeine | 100 mg per 10 g serve | Added caffeine free per the brand's product page |
| Published price at capture, 17 September 2026 | A$125 for 30 days, A$99 a month on subscription, A$65 for the 15 day pouch | USD $175 per 90 days (the store shows USD $58.33 per container), USD $69.99 a month, USD $79 for a one-off 30 servings; store displayed USD at capture |
Prices are the figures published on each brand's own store on 17 September 2026, and GRNS's store displayed US dollars during our capture, so use its local currency switch before you compare. We make Hoola, so weigh the Hoola column with that in mind.
How is a greens-first brand different from a listed daily formula?
One is built to widen what you take in, the other to name what you are taking and how much. GRNS describes 40+ whole-food ingredients across greens, adaptogens, pre and probiotics, antioxidants, fibre, fruit and vegetables, and digestive enzymes, with 6.6 billion live probiotics per serve, an 8 g scoop, 30 servings a container, batch testing by HASTA for 250+ banned substances, and a 30 day money-back guarantee. Hoola is one 10 g scoop with 27 actives, every quantity published on the public register, built to support calm clarity and energised performance, with the caffeine figure printed on the label.
Both are fair buys for different jobs. A greens-first powder suits someone who wants a wide ingredient spread, gut-focused extras such as probiotics and enzymes, and a drink they can build into a morning; the trade is that you cannot check each amount, and the category's own experts are blunt that a scoop is not a serving of vegetables and does not replace a balanced diet. A listed formula suits someone who wants to know the amount of every active in the scoop and to look it up on a register rather than trust a brand's page.
If coverage is the goal, the greens shelf is the right place to shop, and our guide to whether green powders are worth it walks through the label checks in detail. If a checkable daily formula is the goal, this is the job Hoola Daily Multivitamin is built for: one scoop, one glass of cold water, every amount published, and a 150 g pouch if you would rather try 15 days before you subscribe. The full formula comparison sits in Hoola against GRNS on the published facts.
Frequently asked questions
Which Australian greens powder is considered the best?
There is no product that everyone agrees on, and ratings do not settle it, because each platform counts different people in different ways. The ACCC's guide to reading a score is to look at the total number of reviews behind it and how they were collected. Dietitian and food science advice for choosing between powders is simpler: look for actual vegetable powder as the majority ingredient, with recognisable vegetables listed, then check what the brand publishes about amounts. The best greens powder for you is the one whose label you can check, because most of the reviews in this category are about taste and repeat orders.
Do daily greens supplements actually work?
They add some vitamins and minerals and a little fibre, and they are not necessary on top of a decent diet. That is the assessment of an accredited practising dietitian and a food and nutrition scientist in the ABC's look at the category: green powders "usually contain some vitamins and minerals and a little fibre, but it doesn't replace a healthy balanced diet". Drying and processing costs some of the benefit, and a scoop is not equivalent to a serve of vegetables. They can be a reasonable addition for someone with a low appetite, a restrictive diet or a lot of travel on their plate.
Is GRNS listed on the ARTG?
No AUST L number appeared on the GRNS pages we captured on 17 September 2026. Listing is what puts a formulation and its label on the public register under an AUST L number, and the register is free to search, so run it yourself before you buy. Not holding a listing is not a verdict on quality; it means there is no public formulation for you to check. Hoola is a listed medicine, AUST L 508472, and the TGA listed options we compared covers the alternatives if a listing matters to you.
What are the key differences between AG1 and GRNS?
Both are greens-first powders sold as nutritional coverage rather than listed daily formulas, so the useful comparison is on the things you can check: what each brand publishes about amounts, whether either holds a listing you can search on the register, the scoop size and any caffeine, and the price per serve converted into one currency. GRNS gives an 8 g scoop and states no added caffeine, and its store displayed US dollars when we captured it. For the wider field of listed formulas, our GRNS alternatives comparison is the next read.
Can you trust reviews on a brand's own website?
You can trust them as reports from real customers, and you cannot treat the page as neutral. The brand picks the review platform, the sort order and what sits beside the reviews, which is why themes are more useful than the score. The GRNS page runs several sorts and shows its ambassador panel on the same page as its customer reviews. Platforms are not neutral either, and the honest ones say so: Trustpilot states that it does not fact-check reviews and explains how its Verified label works. Read both, and always check how many reviews sit behind a rating.
How many reviews does a rating need before it means anything?
There is no threshold, and a small sample is not automatically wrong, just small. Two reviews on a retailer listing are two people, even when the retailer says its ratings come from several sources and that it cannot vouch for the statements in them. Two hundred reviews on a brand's own page still need reading, because an average hides the one and two star stories. Two checks do most of the work: whether the recent window is big enough to reflect how the company operates now, and whether the same complaints repeat across months or cluster into one bad fortnight.
