Nutrition Fit · 30%
AAFCO cat adequacy, protein DMB 30-50% (adult) or 35%+ (growth), taurine declaration required, mineral disclosure.
Cat food methodology
Cat rubric48 cat foods scored
Cat scores are different because cats are different.
The dog food rubric works for dogs because dogs are omnivores with a broad nutritional tolerance. Cats are obligate carnivores. The cat rubric mirrors the dog rubric’s five sub-scores and weights, but adjusts protein bands, requires taurine declaration, uses a feline-specific allergen profile, and refuses to score urinary-pH, hairball, and dental-health marketing claims.
Brand Trust · 25%
Same WSAVA-style signals as dog rubric: named nutritionist, owned manufacturing, AAFCO feeding trials, peer-reviewed research, recall record.
Ingredient Clarity · 15%
Named animal proteins, named fats, specific grains, country of origin. Same rules as dog rubric - transparency is species-agnostic.
Sensitivity Risk · 15%
Cat-specific allergen weighting: fish -1.5 (more frequent in cats), wheat not flagged. Cites Verlinden 2006 + Olivry-Mueller 2017.
Value · 15%
Cost per 1,000 kcal within cat-specific category median (budget dry, mass premium, premium, boutique, wet premium, wet budget, fresh, freeze-dried).
What changes from the dog rubric
The rules that differ, side-by-side.
Brand Trust, Ingredient Clarity, and Value rules are unchanged - those are manufacturer-level or transparency signals that don’t depend on species. Nutrition Fit and Sensitivity Risk diverge because cat biology demands it.
Rule
Dog rubric
Cat rubric
Adult protein DMB band
18-35%
30-50%
Growth protein DMB band
22.5-35%
35%+
Adult fat DMB band
5.5-20%
9-25%
Taurine declaration
Not scored
Required (+1, hard fail if missing on adult diet)
Magnesium / ash disclosure
Not scored
+0.5
Fish in top 5
Not flagged
-1.5 (allergen)
Wheat in top 5
-1
Not flagged
Anti-features
What this cat food rubric refuses to score.
Urinary pH efficacy. A clinical claim we cannot validate from the label. We score mineral disclosure (magnesium, ash) but not efficacy.
Hairball-control efficacy. Marketed by many cat foods; no public clinical data we can score against.
Dental-health efficacy.“Cleans teeth” claims require Veterinary Oral Health Council (VOHC) acceptance. We will note VOHC acceptance when present but will not score the efficacy claim itself.
“Indoor cat” formula efficacy. A marketing positioning, not a verifiable nutritional category.
Outcome predictions.Same as the dog rubric - we don’t predict whether a specific cat will thrive on a specific food.
v1.0 decisions resolved (2026-05-18)
The four open editorial decisions, settled.
Therapeutic / prescription cat diets.Split from dog Rx editorially. Cat Rx and dog Rx are scored in separate cohorts because the clinical targets differ by species. A "kidney support cat" diet (low phos + protein) and a "kidney support dog" diet target different physiologies; mixing them in one editorial cohort confuses score comparison.
Multi-species brand evidence.Hill’s, Royal Canin, Pro Plan, and other dual-species brands apply their dog-verified Brand Trust signals to their cat products. Same Topeka R&D team, same plant, same recall record. The brand page displays an explicit caveat: “Brand Trust evidence sourced from dog-side research; cat-product feeding-trial evidence not separately verified.”
VOHC dental acceptance. Noted as a label flag, not scored. VOHC is a real third-party signal but the rubric stays out of clinical efficacy claims (per /refused). When a cat product carries VOHC acceptance, a small chip will render on the product page; the sub-scores are unchanged.
Sensitivity reference. Verlinden 2006 is the canonical reference for feline adverse food reactions. Olivry-Mueller 2017 is cited as secondary corroboration.
Source anchors
Public references used by the cat food rubric.
Further reading
The thinking behind these rules.
- Cat food is not dog food. Here's what the label has to prove differently.Cats are obligate carnivores, so the regulatory floor and the things worth checking on the back of the bag are not the same as for dogs. The PetScored cat rubric reads four of them differently.
- We hard-failed a freeze-dried cat food. Chicken hearts were ingredient #3.Vital Essentials Freeze-Dried Chicken Mini Patties scored 6.0 on PetScored. The rubric floored the nutrition score because taurine wasn't declared on the label - even though the recipe is naturally taurine-rich. Here's why the rule fired anyway, and why we're keeping it.
- We scored every cat food we could verify. Cheap and good are different axes.The grocery-aisle foods land lowest on the composite and highest on Value at the same time. That isn't a contradiction - it's the rubric refusing to punish affordability. Here's the honest spread across the cat catalog.