Wellness CORE Tender Cuts with Chicken & Chicken Liver in Savoury Gravy
Wet Chunks · completeHigh meatClear label
Our verdict
Is Wellness CORE Tender Cuts with Chicken & Chicken Liver in Savoury Gravy a good dog food?
We score it 67/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete wet food in chunks for adult dogs, with chicken broth, chicken and chicken liver as the main ingredients.
66% of this recipe has no printed percentage. Estimated shares are model estimates, not label facts.
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for adult dogs
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Single named protein: chicken
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- You are limiting fat: 27.0% on a dry-matter basis is in the high band
These points are derived from declared ingredients and analysis, not a substitute for veterinary advice. If your dog has a diagnosed condition, food choice is a medical nutrition decision: speak to your vet. Find foods that fit your dog.
Nutrition and feedingProtein 7% · Fat 5.40%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 7% |
| Fat | 5.40% |
| Fibre | 0.10% |
| Ash | 1.40% |
| Moisture | 80% |
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Best at room temperature. Refrigerate unused portion.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Taurine 1540 mg; Vitamin A 14240 IU; Vitamin D3 420 IU; Vitamin E 64 mg; Zinc 113 mg; Iron 77 mg; Manganese 27 mg; Copper 18 mg; Iodine 0.2 mg; Selenium 0.038 mg
Ingredients (10)66% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 53.3%
- veg 19.3%
- carb 18.0%
- supplement 9.4%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chicken Broth | Chicken Broth | meat · medium | - | 12.0 |
| 2 | Chicken 25% | Chicken | meat · medium | 25 | 25.0 |
| 3 | Chicken Liver 6% | Chicken Liver | meat · good | 6 | 6.0 |
| 4 | Potato Starch | Potato starch | carb · poor | - | 11.1 |
| 5 | Eggs | Egg | meat · good | - | 10.3 |
| 6 | Carrots 3% | Carrots | veg · good | 3 | 3.0 |
| 7 | Minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 9.4 |
| 8 | Cranberries | Cranberries | veg · good | - | 8.6 |
| 9 | Blueberries | Blueberries | veg · good | - | 7.7 |
| 10 | White Sweet Potatoes | Sweet Potatoes | carb · good | - | 6.9 |
- 1. Chicken Broth12.0% estimated
- 2. Chicken 25%25% declared25.0% estimated
- 3. Chicken Liver 6%6% declared6.0% estimated
- 4. Potato Starch11.1% estimated
- 5. Eggs10.3% estimated
- 6. Carrots 3%3% declared3.0% estimated
- 7. Minerals9.4% estimated
- 8. Cranberries8.6% estimated
- 9. Blueberries7.7% estimated
- 10. White Sweet Potatoes6.9% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-29
Brand and contact: Wellness CORE
- Website
- https://wellnesscore.eu/
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-29
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- wellnesscore.eu
Recall history is presentation-only and never affects the score. Dates are when we recorded the data, not when the manufacturer last changed the recipe.
Spotted a mistake in this listing? Report it here and we'll take a look.
Score details and methodologyCalculations, history and evidence
Recipe: how the 1-100 score is calculated
Why this score?
The score is 67 out of 100. Ingredients without printed percentages contributed -7 points. The overall quality of the ingredient list contributed +5.9 points, the meat content contributed +2.9 points, and being labelled nutritionally complete contributed +2.3 points.
Scored with model v3 on 2026-10-25. Each component is the feature value for this product multiplied by the model's published coefficient.
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.92 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 30.4% | 0.096 | +2.91 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 15.7% | -0.115 | -1.81 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 10.1% | -0.005 | -0.05 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 30.3% | -0.012 | -0.37 |
| Recipe graded poor | 11.1% | -0.065 | -0.72 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 11.1% | 0.060 | +0.67 |
| Undeclared quantities | 66.0% | -0.106 | -6.97 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.92 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 30.4% | 0.096 | +2.91 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 15.7% | -0.115 | -1.81 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.092 | +0.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 10.1% | -0.005 | -0.05 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 30.3% | -0.012 | -0.37 |
| Other share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.375 | +0.00 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 11.1% | -0.065 | -0.72 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 11.1% | 0.060 | +0.67 |
| Undeclared quantities | 66.0% | -0.106 | -6.97 |
| Prints ingredient percentages | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Frozen or chilled fresh | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | no | -3.158 | +0.00 |
| High carb and low meat | no | -1.180 | +0.00 |
| Meat share × printed percentages | 0.0 | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Meat share × fresh | 0.0 | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Fresh × high meat | 0.0 | 11.084 | +0.00 |
| Additive penalty | 0.00 | 0.222 | +0.00 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| Processing: Raw | no | -0.054 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Chilled | no | -2.354 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Frozen | no | -2.354 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Refrigerated | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Shelf | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Freeze Dried | no | 6.629 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Air Dried | no | 6.331 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Cold Pressed | no | -6.713 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Baked | no | -6.713 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Extruded | no | -6.713 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Semi Moist | no | -6.174 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Muesli | no | -10.146 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Wet Pate | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
- Processing-type offset
- -0.08
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 66.6
- Final score
- 67/100
Contributions are rounded to two decimals, so they may not sum exactly to the subtotal. The full coefficient table is published on the methodology page.
Score history across model versions
The score shown above is always computed with the latest published model. Earlier scores are kept for the record and are never edited or deleted; a scoring change ships as a new model version with a public write-up on the methodology page.
Nutritional: declared analysis vs reference ranges
How the declared analysis compares with FEDIAF reference ranges for adult dogs. The label prints as-fed values; we convert to a dry-matter basis before scoring, and the bands are dry-matter ranges. Scores rise to 100 at the band midpoint: the reference is adequacy, not maximisation. Nutrients with a published upper limit taper again above it; fat is policed through calorie density rather than a direct penalty.
Guaranteed-analysis FEDIAF score: crude minimums and maximums are bounds, not typical values; moisture (a maximum) uses the processing median where available; experimental US score.
| Nutrient | As fed (label) | Dry matter (scored) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 7 | 33.3 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 5.4 | 25.7 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 0.1 | 0.5 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 69.7 |
Scored over 3 declared nutrients (combined weight 50); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 79% from the food type.
Declared fortification: 10 nutritional additives on the label
- Taurine 1540 mg
- Vitamin A 14240 IU
- Vitamin D3 420 IU
- Vitamin E 64 mg
- Zinc 113 mg
- Iron 77 mg
- Manganese 27 mg
- Copper 18 mg
- Iodine 0.2 mg
- Selenium 0.038 mg
Low confidence: partial analysis or moisture estimated from the food type.
This measures agreement with published reference ranges, not suitability for an individual dog. For medical conditions, follow veterinary guidance.
Transparency: what the label discloses
How much the manufacturer discloses, measured against the FEDIAF Code of Good Labelling Practice and Regulation 767/2009. Mandatory items dominate the weighting.
| Item | Points |
|---|---|
| Ingredient list on the label (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| Printed percentages on the label (34% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 6.8/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) | 15/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) | 5/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) - not on file | 0/5 |
| Complete/complementary designation (mandatory) | 5/5 |
| Feeding guidance given (mandatory) - not on file | 0/10 |
| Manufacturer identity and address (mandatory) | 5/10 |
| Country of manufacture stated (voluntary) | 10/10 |
| Batch and date labelling (mandatory) - not on file | 0/5 |
Capped at 60: mandatory items missing (Feeding guidance given, Batch and date labelling).
Safety: recall history
Recall and safety-notice history, time-decayed. This dimension is shown alongside the score and never feeds the headline number.
No recalls recorded in our database.
See all current recalls we track.
Evidence: what the brand claims, and what supports it
The claims made on the pack and product page, checked against the declared label. We record claims as stated; "consistent" means our stored label data supports the claim, "contradicted" means it conflicts with it. Functional claims are recorded but never scored.
100/100 · strong — 3 checkable claims: 3 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "protein-rich recipes" — supported by the declared high protein data.
- "grain free" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
- "Tasty protein-rich recipes to guarantee a taste cats love" — supported by the declared high protein data.
6 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.
Strong: at least three checkable claims, all consistent with the declared label, and no compliance cap.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete & balanced (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| complete and balanced meals (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Grain-free to support their sensitive tummies (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| protein-rich recipes (on page) | High/low level | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| grain free (on page) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| natural slow cooked tender cuts of poultry combined with healthy veggies and fruits (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Slow-cooked in tasty gravy (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Tasty protein-rich recipes to guarantee a taste cats love (on page) | High/low level | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Enriched with vitamins and minerals (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.
Alternatives to Tender Cuts with Chicken & Chicken Liver in Savoury Gravy
Similar on ingredients, protein, format or nutrition, using the same stored data.
Community0 comments
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share how this went down with your dog.