Erectin Review: The Trial It Cites Tested a Different Product
Erectin calls itself clinically proven and points to a trial of 78 men published in a peer-reviewed journal. That trial is real, and its results were strong. The problem is what it tested. The paper names its product in the first lines of the abstract, and the product is not Erectin. Erectin is sold by the same company as VigRX Plus, and VigRX Plus is the product that was actually studied. This review walks through exactly how we established that, what it does and doesn’t mean, and what’s left of Erectin’s case once the borrowed study is set aside.
What Erectin Claims
Erectin’s official site describes its formula as clinically proven. Its order page says a clinical trial involving 78 men with mild to moderate erectile difficulties was published in full in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, and adds that the results were documented in the Journal of Urology. A link on its ingredients page invites visitors to read the clinical study report. Each of those statements points at the same piece of research, so that research is what we checked.
What the Trial Actually Tested
The clinical study report linked from Erectin’s own ingredients page is the same trial. It has the same 78 men, the same enrollment period (May to December 2009), the same headline numbers (erectile function scores rising from 16.08 to 25.08 on the active product versus 15.86 to 16.47 on placebo), and the same sponsor. The one difference is that the report refers to the product throughout as “FORMULA,” with the brand name removed. On Erectin’s order page, the wording borrows the paper’s own description, asking whether “the proprietary polyherbal formula in Erectin” could help these men. Erectin was never named in the trial, and nothing on the pages we read tells a visitor that a different product was studied.
| The trial’s product | Erectin (its own site and label) | |
|---|---|---|
| Name | VigRX Plus (identified in the paper) | Erectin |
| Format | Standard capsules with dry excipients such as dicalcium phosphate and cellulose | Enteric-coated liquid gel capsules |
| Daily dose | Four capsules a day, 360 mg each | Label suggests two capsules a day, not to exceed four |
| Ingredients | Eleven, including Epimedium | Ten named on the ingredients page; Epimedium is not among them |
| Company | Sponsored by Leading Edge Marketing | Sold by Leading Edge Health |
Could the Results Still Apply?
It is a fair question, and we don’t want to overstate the case. Ten of the eleven ingredients in the trial formula are the ten that Erectin’s ingredients page describes, both come from the same company, and Erectin’s order page refers to eleven ingredients, so Erectin may well be a close relative of VigRX Plus. But “close relative” is not “the tested product.” The format is different, the labeled dose is different, and the one ingredient missing from Erectin’s ingredients page is Epimedium, which is the ingredient with the best-understood mechanism in the tested formula.
The trial’s own authors make the underlying point in their introduction: supplement makers usually rest their claims on studies of individual ingredients rather than the whole formula, which is precisely why a trial on the finished product matters. That logic cuts both ways. A trial on one formula supports that formula. Whether it supports a different one is something the company would need to demonstrate, and Erectin’s pages don’t attempt to.
What the Trial Does Support
For VigRX Plus, the trial is genuinely strong, and we cover it in detail in our VigRX Plus review. It is worth being fair about its limits too, since they travel with any product that relies on it. The trial was funded by the manufacturer: the paper’s acknowledgments say Leading Edge Herbals paid for the trial medication and other requirements, and the investigators were compensated for their work. The men were young (an average age around 35 in the report) and free of diabetes and heart disease, and the authors themselves recommend confirming the result in a broader group of men with erectile dysfunction. They also flagged an unusually small placebo response and asked readers to view the results with caution. Neither testosterone levels nor semen parameters changed significantly in either group.
Ingredients, and What Evidence Backs Them
Erectin’s ingredients page describes ten ingredients, none with a dose. Most of what the trial paper itself cites for them is thin.
The best-supported ingredient here. The trial paper notes it is the only ingredient in the formula previously tested on the standard erectile function scale in randomized trials, and a 2008 systematic review pooled seven trials for a significant benefit, though study quality was low on average. The doses in those trials, however, were large: the two ginseng trials the paper cites used 900 to 1,000 mg three times a day.
Erectin says ginkgo provided an immediate blood-flow boost in clinical studies. The trial paper’s own citation for its erectile relevance is a laboratory study on rabbit and human erectile tissue, not a clinical trial. The paper also notes concerns about ginkgo’s blood-thinning effect.
Erectin’s ingredients page labels it “The Testosterone Boosting Berries.” Saw palmetto is best known for research on prostate urinary symptoms, where major systematic reviews disagree with one another. The trial paper cites only an open-label prostate study for any sexual-function link, and the trial itself found no significant change in testosterone.
The evidence the trial paper cites is from sexually exhausted rats, not from human trials.
The paper cites animal studies and one older human study. A 2025 systematic review found only low-quality evidence for erectile function and no robust evidence that Tribulus raises testosterone.
Long traditional histories, but the trial paper’s discussion cites no erectile-function human evidence for any of them. Hawthorn’s relevance is indirect, through blood pressure and vasodilation.
A patented black pepper extract included to improve absorption of the other ingredients, a well-documented function of piperine.
The Missing Numbers
Erectin’s ingredients page gives no per-ingredient amounts, and the NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database entry for the product, which would show the label’s supplement-facts panel, wouldn’t load for us, so we could not verify Erectin’s doses independently. What we can do is put the trial’s numbers in context. The trial regimen was four capsules a day. The report’s text says each capsule held 360 mg, but its composition table totals 720 mg, so the table appears to describe two capsules’ worth. That table lists Korean red ginseng at 100 mg per unit. On either reading, the tested regimen delivered roughly 200 to 400 mg of ginseng a day, compared with about 2,700 to 3,000 mg a day in the two ginseng trials the paper cites. That is a useful reminder that even the successful trial doesn’t establish that ginseng is doing the work.
Guarantee, Terms & Look-Alike Sites
The official site states a 67-day, 100% satisfaction guarantee, and its clinical studies page adds that the refund is issued minus shipping and handling. That deduction is worth knowing about before you order. Terms are not stated consistently across the web: a press release carrying the company’s own support email describes a 60-day guarantee, as do several look-alike sites. The company says Erectin is sold only through its official website, and we’d treat that as the only place to buy.
Several look-alike domains promise “bigger” erections and steep discounts. The trial measured erectile function and satisfaction, not size, so those promises have no support in the research being cited. We also noted that the order page refers to eleven ingredients while the ingredients page describes ten, an inconsistency we couldn’t resolve from the pages available, and that the “documented in the Journal of Urology” statement isn’t something we could verify. The full paper we found is the BMC one, and it concerns VigRX Plus.
Safety and Who Should Not Take This
- Anyone with a soy allergy (the label states the product contains soy)
- Anyone taking blood thinners, given the blood-thinning concern the trial paper raises about ginkgo
- Anyone with diabetes or cardiovascular disease, who were excluded from the trial
- Anyone under 18
One more point, from the trial paper itself: erectile dysfunction can be an early sign of vascular disease, and experts recommend treating a man with persistent ED as a possible cardiovascular patient until shown otherwise. If you have ongoing erection problems, see a doctor before self-treating with any supplement. This isn’t medical advice, and it applies especially if you take medication or have an existing condition.
Pros & Cons
Pros
- 67-day guarantee from the manufacturer
- Ingredient list overlaps heavily with a trial-tested formula
- Made by the same company as VigRX Plus, so a tested alternative is easy to find
Cons
- No trial was ever run on Erectin itself
- Its “clinically proven” claim rests on a study of a different product
- Format and labeled dose differ from what was tested
- No per-ingredient amounts published; ten versus eleven ingredient inconsistency
- Refunds are issued minus shipping and handling
Who It’s For
Realistically, no one who is choosing based on the trial. If the published study is what persuades you, buy the product it studied, which is VigRX Plus and comes from the same company. Erectin makes sense only if you want a lower-cost or different-format relative and understand that the trial doesn’t cover it.
FAQ
Is Erectin clinically proven?
No trial was run on Erectin. The study its site cites tested VigRX Plus, a product from the same company.
Is Erectin the same as VigRX Plus?
They share ten named ingredients and a maker, but they differ in format (liquid gel versus standard capsule), labeled dose, and in whether Epimedium is listed. The company doesn’t state that the two are equivalent.
Why does Erectin’s site link a study report if it isn’t about Erectin?
The report replaces the product name with “FORMULA” throughout. The published paper, which uses the name, identifies the product as VigRX Plus.
Does the trial say anything about penis size?
No. It measured erectile function, satisfaction, testosterone, and semen parameters, not size.
Is the guarantee real?
The official site states 67 days, with refunds minus shipping and handling. Other sites and a press release state a 60-day term, so check the official terms before buying.
Do I need a prescription?
No, it’s an over-the-counter dietary supplement, not a prescription medication or a substitute for one.
See the product the trial actually tested
Read Our VigRX Plus ReviewLast reviewed September 2026 · Read our rating methodology · Clinical reference: Shah et al., 2012, BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine.