The number on the label vs. real extract quality

Version 1.0 · Published: 25.05.2026

Subject-matter reviewer: Aloha Fungi team

30% β-glucans in one Reishi and 30% β-glucans in another Reishi is not always the same number. A customer sees a percentage, compares two labels and assumes that the higher number means a better product. A brand builds an entire message around that number: “standardised extract”, “high β-glucan content”, “premium quality”. The problem is that the number alone does not tell the whole story — and that is exactly where the difference between marketing and real quality begins.

---

In short (60 seconds)

• 🔢 A number without context means nothing. A percentage on the label only makes sense when we know: what raw material, what test method, what extraction process.
• 🧪 β-glucans ≠ polysaccharides. “40% polysaccharides” is not the same as “40% β-glucans” — simple lab methods do not distinguish mushroom compounds from grain carbohydrates in the substrate (mycelium).
• ⚗️ A 10:1 ratio is not everything. It speaks to concentration, but it does not answer questions about raw material, extraction methods or the profile of active compounds.
• 🔬 The test method matters. Triterpenes, cordycepin, hericenones, melanins — different groups of compounds require different lab approaches.
• 📜 Standardisation does not replace raw-material quality. A high percentage does not fix poor raw material, unclear origin or missing batch documentation.
• ✅ A good number is backed by: real raw material, an honest description, a reproducible process, a sensible test method, and control of a specific batch.

---

A number without context is just decoration

In the world of functional mushrooms, numbers look very professional.

30% β-glucans.
40% polysaccharides.
10:1 extract.
50% extract.
Dual extraction.
Standardisation.

It all sounds technical, specific and credible.

But a number without context can be misleading.

Because extract quality does not depend solely on the percentage we see on the label. It depends on a few questions that rarely appear in marketing communication:

• which part of the mushroom the extract was made from,
• whether fruiting body, mycelium or a mixture with substrate was used,
• which method was used to measure the declared compound,
• whether the result concerns β-glucans or general polysaccharides,
• whether the extract was water-based, alcoholic or dual,
• whether the product was tested as a specific batch,
• whether the declaration comes from a real analysis or just the supplier’s specification.

Only the answers to these questions tell you whether the number is useful.

The number itself is the start of a conversation.

β-glucans, polysaccharides and a marketing shortcut

One of the biggest sources of confusion in functional mushrooms is the difference between β-glucans and polysaccharides.

Polysaccharides are a broad class of compounds. β-glucans are one of their fractions.

In practice, this means that a product described as “40% polysaccharides” is not the same as a product described as “40% β-glucans”.

This matters.

Because some simple lab methods may show a high content of total polysaccharides without distinguishing whether we are talking about compounds typical of mushrooms or about other chains present in the material.

And if the raw material contains mycelium grown on grain, the situation becomes even more problematic.

Grain also contributes carbohydrates. If the material is not properly described and tested, the result may look attractive, but it does not necessarily mean a high-quality mushroom extract.

That is why at Aloha Fungi we are more interested in the question:

What exactly was measured — and by which method?

Than:

What percentage appears on the label?

30% in one product and 30% in another

Imagine two products.

Both have Reishi on the label. Both communicate 30% β-glucans. Both look similar in an online store. Both promise quality.

But the first product was made from the fruiting body of Ganoderma lucidum, from a controlled source, after proper drying, extraction and testing of a specific batch.

The second product comes from material with a less clear history. The specification declares 30%, but the brand does not know exactly whether the fruiting body alone was used, what the assay method was, or whether the result applies to the current batch.

On the label, they look similar.

In reality, they may be two completely different products.

The point is not that every percentage declaration is bad.

The point is that a percentage without process, source and test method is not enough to assess quality.

The number may be true but incomplete. It may be correct but poorly described. It may also be used in a way that the customer interprets differently than it should be interpreted.

A 10:1 extract does not tell the whole story either

Another popular example is a labelling like 10:1.

In theory, this is meant to indicate that ten parts of raw material were used to obtain one part of extract. It sounds strong. It sounds logical. It sounds like an advantage.

But in practice, 10:1 alone does not answer the most important questions.

It does not say what the input raw material was.
It does not say which compounds were extracted.
It does not say whether the extract was standardised.
It does not say whether unwanted fractions were removed.
It does not say whether the final powder was tested.
It does not say whether the process was reproducible.

A 10:1 extract can be excellent.

But it can also simply be a concentrated product with an unclear profile of active compounds.

That is why comparing extracts solely by ratio is an oversimplification.

It is a bit like judging coffee quality only by how many kilograms of beans were used to produce a concentrate, without asking about the variety, the plantation, the roast, freshness or extraction method.

In functional mushrooms, technology matters.

But technology without transparency can become just another marketing slogan.

The test method matters

When a brand declares a specific content of active compounds, the key question is: how was it tested?

A lab value does not exist in a vacuum. It depends on the method, sample preparation, the analytical standard and exactly what the laboratory is measuring.

This is especially important with mushrooms, because different groups of compounds require different approaches.

β-glucans are not the same as total polysaccharides.
Triterpenes in Reishi are not β-glucans.
Cordycepin in Cordyceps is a different marker than polysaccharides.
Erinacines and hericenones in Lion’s Mane are yet another category of compounds.
Melanins, polyphenols and other fractions in Chaga require yet another conversation.

If we reduce everything to a single number, we lose the whole picture.

A good extract should be understood as a profile, not just as a percentage.

Standardisation does not replace source quality

Standardisation is important.

It allows a brand to aim for product reproducibility. The customer is not buying something completely different each time. The producer has a reference point, the laboratory can verify parameters, and the team responsible for quality can compare batches.

But standardisation does not fix poor raw material.

If the input material is of low quality, unclear origin or poorly described, standardisation alone does not automatically turn it into a premium product.

A high percentage on the label does not replace:

• good cultivation,
• the right substrate,
• clean material,
• proper drying,
• well-chosen extraction,
• safety testing,
• documentation of a specific batch.

All of this is part of quality.

That is why in functional mushrooms we do not just ask: “what percentage?”.

We also ask: “from what, how, where, by whom and how confirmed?”.

Fruiting body, mycelium and substrate

One of the most important quality topics is the input material.

In functional mushrooms you can work with the fruiting body, with mycelium, or with products containing mycelium together with the growing substrate. Each of these approaches can have its place, but the problem begins when the communication does not clearly state what is in the product.

To the customer, the word “Reishi” sounds like one specific thing.

But technologically it can mean several different materials.

It can be Reishi fruiting body.
It can be a fruiting-body extract.
It can be mycelium.
It can be a mixture of mycelium with substrate.
It can be an extract standardised to a specific fraction.
It can be a powder with incomplete documentation.

If two brands show a similar number, but one works with the fruiting body and the other with material containing a large share of substrate, comparing percentages alone can lead to wrong conclusions.

This is precisely the moment when the number on the label can stop being a tool of transparency and become a tool of oversimplification.

Safety is the other side of quality

Extract quality is not only about active compounds.

It is also about purity.

Mushrooms are organisms that can accumulate compounds from the environment. That is why testing for heavy metals, pesticides, microbiological contaminants and other safety parameters is important for mushroom raw materials.

A product may have an attractive standardisation and at the same time require very careful purity control.

Looking only at β-glucans gives just a narrow slice of the picture.

A high number on the label does not automatically answer the questions:

• whether the product was tested for heavy metals,
• whether pesticide residues were checked,
• whether microbiology was performed,
• whether the document concerns this specific batch,
• whether the results fall within safety standards,
• whether the brand has real control over the supplier.

Only the combination of active compounds, purity and origin gives a fuller picture.

What should a good label show?

A good label does not need to be overloaded with technical details.

But it should be honest.

If the product declares β-glucans, it should be clear that we are talking about β-glucans, not general polysaccharides. If the fruiting body was used, it is worth showing that. If the product is an extract, it is worth indicating the type of extraction. If it is standardised, it is worth clearly stating what it is standardised to.

Good communication should help the customer understand the product, not just create an impression.

An example of clearer communication:

Element	Why it matters
Part of the mushroom	Shows whether fruiting body, mycelium or other material was used
Extraction method	Helps understand which fractions might have been obtained
Standardisation	Indicates which compounds the product is controlled for
Batch testing	Shows whether the declaration concerns a real product
Purity	Confirms raw-material safety
Origin	Makes it easier to assess control over the supply chain

These are not details only for experts.

They are the basics of responsible work with raw material.

Why doesn’t the customer see this?

The customer often sees only the front of the product.

A nice label. A short slogan. A percentage. A promise of function.

They do not see emails with the supplier. They do not see the specification. They do not see the differences between test methods. They do not see the decisions the brand made before launching the product.

That is why the responsibility lies with the producer.

It is the brand that should know whether the number on the label is a real quality parameter or just a convenient sales argument.

It is the brand that should understand the difference between polysaccharides and β-glucans.

It is the brand that should be able to explain why it chose this particular extract, this particular material and this particular control method.

Because the customer should not have to be a lab technician, a process technologist and an import specialist to buy a good product.

How we look at numbers

At Aloha Fungi we do not treat numbers superficially.

We treat them as a commitment.

If we give a specific parameter, we want to know what stands behind it. We are interested not only in the declaration itself, but in the whole context: source, material, extraction, documentation and testing.

Numbers are important, but only when they are part of a larger picture.

A good number should be backed by:

• real raw material,
• an honest description,
• a reproducible process,
• an appropriate test method,
• control of a specific batch,
• biological meaning,
• transparent communication.

Without that, the number becomes just the language of marketing.

And functional mushrooms deserve more than marketing.

Summary

A number on the label can help in assessing an extract.

But it can also create a false sense of certainty.

30% β-glucans in one product and 30% β-glucans in another product do not always mean the same quality, if behind those products stand different raw materials, different methods, different sources and different levels of control.

That is why in functional mushrooms it is worth looking deeper.

Not only at the percentage.
Not only at the ratio.
Not only at the word “standardised”.
Not only at the promise on the label.

It is worth asking what the number really means.

Because a good extract is not just a high result.

It is a result that makes sense.