Tru Niagen and Elysium Basis both use nicotinamide riboside, but Basis adds pterostilbene. The central decision is therefore whether to evaluate a focused NR product or a combination formula.
This comparison concerns Tru Niagen’s standard 300 mg product and Elysium Basis, not every item sold by either company. Brand-wide research claims should not be assumed to apply equally to different formulas or strengths.
The added pterostilbene is the key difference. Compare the complete formulas and study outcomes, including lipid findings, rather than choosing by brand reputation or NR milligrams alone.
The ingredient lists answer the first question
Tru Niagen 300 mg lists nicotinamide riboside chloride as its active ingredient. Elysium Basis combines NR with pterostilbene, a separate plant-derived compound. The added ingredient creates an additional evidence and suitability question rather than automatically making Basis more complete.
See the Tru Niagen review and Basis review for the product-specific details. Neither is a direct NAD injection or an NMN supplement.
Compare the full serving, not one capsule from each
The standard Tru Niagen panel uses a one-capsule serving, while Basis describes a two-capsule routine. Capsule count and serving count therefore need to remain separate when comparing bottles or pouches.
A lower NR amount alongside another ingredient should not be treated as an inferior version of a higher-amount plain product. The question is what the complete formula has been shown to do, and whether that evidence is relevant to your goal.
The combination trial has a finding worth discussing
The published NR-plus-pterostilbene trial reported blood-NAD increases and also observed LDL-cholesterol changes. The groups began with different lipid levels, which complicates attribution. The lipid finding belongs in a balanced reading of the study, especially when considering a formula that includes pterostilbene.
It does not prove that every user will experience the same change, but a blood-NAD percentage should not be isolated from the rest of the results. Discuss the actual formula with a clinician if lipid management is part of your care.
Research on one formula cannot settle every comparison
The NR 300 mg guide describes a dose-ranging study of NR without the Basis combination. A separate combination trial is not a head-to-head comparison proving that Basis outperforms the standard Tru Niagen product on memory, energy, or longevity.
Likewise, a quality certification or ingredient-purity claim addresses a different question from demonstrated health benefit. Keep product identity, manufacturing information, and clinical outcomes separate.
A practical way to choose what to investigate
If your priority is evaluating NR with fewer added active ingredients, start with the standard Tru Niagen formula. If you specifically want to assess NR plus pterostilbene, examine Basis and the combination evidence, including the lipid observations.
Compare the current full-serving cost, renewal terms, and other products you already use. Avoid selecting solely from a promised percentage increase in NAD, since that number does not specify how you will feel or function.
Sources & reading notes
Editorial source review updated September 19, 2026. Provider pages describe their own offers; inclusion does not verify a product or its results.
- Tru Niagen: 300 mg capsules Manufacturer label lists NR chloride; not direct NAD+.
- Elysium: Basis Manufacturer label for NR plus pterostilbene; claims and lot documentation are separate evidence.
- Dellinger et al. (2017): randomized NR plus pterostilbene trial Eight-week biomarker and safety study; lipid observations and baseline imbalance remain relevant.
- Conze et al. (2019): NR dose-ranging trial Eight-week trial of 100, 300, and 1,000 mg NR. The 100 mg blood-NAD result differed from baseline but not placebo; biomarker findings are not longevity outcomes.
- FDA: questions and answers on dietary supplements Regulatory categories and limits of premarket review.
Educational information, not individualized medical advice. We do not claim medical review or firsthand treatment experience. Read our review standards and commercial disclosure.