What the score of a dog food measures, how much each part weighs, which caps apply and where each rule comes from. If a brand wants to dispute a score, this is the reference.
This is a translation; in case of discrepancy, the Spanish version prevails.
No language model is involved in the calculation. Every point that is deducted is recorded with the identifier of its rule and a citable source, and that breakdown is stored with each analysis along with the version of the rules, so that any score can be explained and reviewed afterwards.
Everything debatable —the weights, the thresholds, the points, the bands— lives in a versioned rules file, not in the code. Changing a weight does not change a line of logic.
The 0–100 score is the weighted average of three blocks —origin transparency, protein quality and additives— minus what a fourth one takes off, the fit for your dog. The weights are parts of an average, not percentages: they add up to 75 and the score is normalised by them. When additives is not scored, which is the usual case, origin transparency is ≈ 29% of the score and protein quality ≈ 71%.
Penalises declaring by generic categories (“meat and animal derivatives”, “cereals”) rather than naming the ingredient with its percentage (“dehydrated chicken 30%”). Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 allows declaring by categories and makes the percentage optional; this block rewards those who do not take shelter in that opacity.
How much meat there is compared with cereals, pulses and other plant ingredients, estimated on a dry matter basis from the order of the ingredient list; whether the starch equals or exceeds the meat; how many carbohydrates it has on a dry matter basis; the ratio between protein and carbohydrates; and whether pulses dominate the first ingredients, displacing animal protein. Details in “How the meat is estimated”.
The risk level of the highest-risk additive it declares, according to its authorisation in the EU.
Compares the nutrients on a dry matter basis with what their profile needs: species, age, activity, neutering, declared health conditions and body condition (scale of 1–9; from 7 the targets of an overweight dog apply). It doesn’t add, it only subtracts: 0.25 points come off the average for every point the fit loses from 100, up to 25 at most, before rounding. A well-matched dog gets the same score as the product; it is the block that makes the same dog food get different scores for two different dogs.
A block can be left without a score when the data it needs is missing, for example origin without an ingredients list. It is not filled in with the maximum, because that would turn “we don’t know” into “it’s fine”. As a general rule, the final score is then not given either. The exception is additives, and it affects almost every entry today: if the entry has no list, that block is not scored and its weight leaves the split: the others are averaged among themselves. A missing list does not prevent judging the product, but it does not prove it is clean either. Scores saved with earlier versions of the rules are not recalculated: the history shows them as they were calculated.
The label doesn’t say how much each ingredient weighs or how much water the meat contains, so protein quality relies on an estimate, not on the real formulation, which the manufacturer doesn’t publish:
With that estimate, protein quality applies three rules. The meat fraction scores by the usual bands (below 25%, 50% and 70%: 35, 20 and 8 points). composition.starch_over_meat takes off 9 points if the starch (cereal + pulse + tuber) equals or exceeds the dry meat. And composition.carbs_dm_35 to carbs_dm_50 take off 3, 5, 7 and 9 points from 35, 40, 45 and 50% carbohydrates on a dry matter basis (only the highest tier counts).
The last two are Cuenco’s own criterion, not a standard: no source sets a maximum for starch or carbohydrates, which is why each takes off fewer than 10 points and is published here for what it is.
A cap does not deduct points: it sets the maximum score when a condition that can be checked on the label is met. If several match, the most restrictive one applies.
Declares an additive that is not authorised for the species.
cap.additive.banned_for_speciesDeclares an additive with a high risk level.
cap.additive.high_riskMore than 50% of the product, with a declared percentage, is under the generic categories of Article 17(2)(c). It cannot be certified that most of the content is of known quality: it is a ceiling, not an accusation.
cap.origin.unidentified_majorityThe first ingredient on the list is a generic category (meat, cereal or pulse with no species) with no percentage. The list goes by descending weight, so what comes first and isn’t named is what weighs most.
cap.origin.generic_first_ingredientThe first ingredient is a category that doesn’t say which animal it is (“meat and animal derivatives”, “dehydrated animal proteins”…), with or without a percentage: declaring the percentage doesn’t reveal the origin. Categories that name a group (“poultry”, “fish”, “game”) don’t count.
cap.origin.opaque_first_ingredientThey are not a mandatory constituent, so they do not appear on the packaging. If the moisture is not declared (it is only mandatory above 14%), it is estimated by format —8% for dry, 80% for wet, 25% for semi-moist— and the result is marked as estimated.
Carbohydrates = 100 − protein − fat − fibre − ash − moistureProducts are compared after removing the water, because a dry food and a can are not comparable as fed.
Nutrient on a dry matter basis = nutrient ÷ (100 − moisture) × 100Two estimates: NRC 2006a, the one covered by standard EN 16967, and modified Atwater as a fallback. If the manufacturer declares the energy, the declared figure takes precedence, and the calculated ones remain as a check.
Based on the energy your dog needs according to their profile and the energy the dog food provides. The cost per day and per month comes from the price you enter yourself.
A dietetic feed (Regulation (EU) 2020/354) is formulated for a specific nutritional purpose set by the vet. Scoring it like a maintenance food would give a number that contradicts that guidance, so Cuenco gives it neither a score nor a band: it shows the declared additives and one notice, always the same: “This is a dietetic feed: follow your vet’s guidance”. A product is treated as dietetic only if its label or the manufacturer’s page says so (“dietetic feed” and its purpose); “hypoallergenic” on its own in a commercial range doesn’t count.
A treat is not a complete meal, and scoring it against the targets of a complete diet would give a meaningless number. That is why it has no score or band: Cuenco shows its additives, the energy if the manufacturer publishes it and a warning with a source: treats shouldn’t go over 10% of the dog’s daily calories (WSAVA, 2024).
If the manufacturer declares the calories per piece (or the grams per piece, together with the kcal/kg), Cuenco calculates how many pieces fit in a day at most, always rounding down. It is never estimated or measured: without that declared figure, the grams are shown.
Pieces per day = daily calories × 10% ÷ kcal per pieceIn addition, a treat can carry three warnings, with no points and without affecting any score, each with its source:
Each additive is described with verifiable facts and their source —for example, “additive with an open safety evaluation” or “additive with restrictions on use in the EU”— never with an alarmist adjective. The risk level used by the score comes from the EU authorisation (Regulation 1831/2003), not from an opinion.
Art. 17(1)(e) (descending order by weight, percentage optional) and Art. 17(2)(c) (declaration by categories).
Additives in animal nutrition.
Energy requirements and NRC 2006a predictive equations.
Predictive equations for metabolisable energy.
Intended uses of feed for particular nutritional purposes (dietetic feeds).
Water content of meat, to convert it to dry matter: chicken (171052) 75.5 g per 100 g, minced turkey (171505) 72.4, farmed salmon (175167) 64.9 and minced lamb (174370) 59.5.
10% of daily calories as the limit for treats.
Hard chew warning for treats.
Frontiers in Animal Science. Added sugar warning for treats for dogs with diabetes.
If you want to provide data on a product (analysis, ingredients with percentages, declared energy), point out an error in an entry or dispute how a rule has been applied, write to replica@cuencoapp.com.