Excelsior Blind Trial Results - What Customers Reported (May 2026)

Quick answer

Before making any decision on the latest Excelsior batch, Predator Nutrition conducted a blind customer trial comparing the new material against the previous batch. The new batch was preferred overall. However, the trial also revealed something equally interesting: long-term usage history appeared to influence customer perception almost as much as the batch itself.

Results:

Result	Responses
New batch better	6
Previous batch better	3
Neither preferred	2
No response received	3

 

Key findings

• The new Excelsior batch was preferred by twice as many participants as the previous batch.
• Three participants preferred the previous batch despite online criticism of that release (one who preferred the old sample said it was better than the old batch but it was actually from that same batch).
• Two participants preferred neither sample.
• Some customers preferred the previous batch sample despite believing they were reviewing the newer material as they had not enjoyed the batch before which the samples were taken from.
• The most positive feedback came from customers averaging 1-2 servings per week.
• Less favourable feedback became more common as historic usage increased over 3 servings per week across several years. 
• At the highest estimated usage level in the trial, both samples received negative feedback.
• Blind testing produced several results that contradicted expectations based on previous online discussion.

 

Why we ran the trial

Excelsior has generated more discussion than almost any other pre-workout we've sold.Few products have attracted as much debate around batch variation, consistency, tolerance and user experience.When the latest material became available, we had two options.We could simply list it and let customers decide for themselves, or we could gather structured feedback before making any decision.

We chose the latter.

Our own internal testing produced a strong preference for the new material. However, we wanted to know whether existing customers would reach the same conclusion when labels, assumptions and expectations were removed.

How the blind testing worked

Participants received two blind-labelled samples.

One sample came from the previous Excelsior batch.

One sample came from the latest production batch.

Customers were not told which sample was which. Feedback was collected before identities were revealed.

This was not intended to be a scientific study and the sample size was relatively small. The objective was simply to gather structured feedback from real users before any decision was made regarding future availability.

Overall results

A reminder that the final preference split looked like this:

Result	Responses
New batch better	6
Previous batch better	3
Neither preferred	2
No response received	3

 

Looking purely at preferences, the newer material came out ahead.

However, the more interesting findings emerged once we started looking at who preferred which sample and why.

The unexpected findings

The previous Excelsior batch received significant criticism online after release.

If online discussion was a perfect reflection of customer experience, you might expect a blind trial to produce an overwhelming result in favour of the newer material.

That wasn't what happened.

While the majority preferred the new batch, three participants preferred the previous batch.

One particularly interesting example came from a long-term Excelsior customer (27 orders over several years) who strongly preferred what he believed was the newer material. After reviewing the results, it turned out the sample he preferred was actually the previous batch itself.

What it suggests is that products in this category can be perceived very differently when labels, assumptions and expectations are removed from the equation.

How usage history influenced feedback

After reviewing all responses, the clearest pattern wasn't actually batch preference.

It was usage history.

We looked at historic Excelsior purchasing behaviour among the testers and estimated approximate long-term usage frequency.

Usage Profile	Approximate Servings Per Week
Very high usage	18.0
Heavy usage	6.2
Moderate usage	3.1 - 3.3
Light-moderate usage	1.9
Occasional usage	1.0

 

These figures are based on purchases made through our site. Customers take breaks, use other products and don't necessarily consume every serving immediately after purchase.

Even so, a trend emerged.

Customers averaging around one to two servings per week gave the most positive feedback overall. All three customers in that group preferred the new material.

By contrast, customers averaging more than three servings per week generally gave less favourable feedback. Even when their feedback was positive, it was often framed relative to previous batches and historical experiences rather than as a standalone assessment of the sample itself.

At the highest estimated usage level in the group, approximately eighteen servings per week, both samples received negative feedback.

This doesn't mean one group was right and another wrong. It simply suggests that two people can take the same product and evaluate it from very different starting points.

Someone using Excelsior once or twice per week is likely to have a very different frame of reference to someone who has consumed hundreds or potentially thousands of servings over 2-3 years.

 

What we learned

A few conclusions stood out:

• The new material was preferred overall
• The previous batch still had supporters when tested blind
• Blind testing produced different outcomes from what online discussion alone might have suggested
• Long-term usage history appeared to influence customer perception
• Moderate users generally provided the most positive feedback on the new material
• Individual response varied significantly

Most importantly, the trial reinforced something we've observed repeatedly over the years.

Excelsior is one of the few products where previous experience, usage history and expectations appear to influence perception almost as much as the product itself.

Frequently asked questions

Did the new Excelsior batch outperform the previous batch?

Yes.

In this blind trial, 6 participants preferred the new batch compared with 3 who preferred the previous batch.

Was the trial blinded?

Yes.

Participants were not told which sample came from which batch until after feedback had been collected.

Did everyone prefer the new batch?

No.

Three participants preferred the previous batch and two preferred neither sample.

Who responded best?

The most positive feedback came from participants averaging approximately 1-2 servings per week. Less favourable feedback became more common among participants with higher long-term usage.

What happens next

We have reviewed this alongside Imperial Nutrition and greenlighted an order which is on its way to Predator and expected in early June. As to whether it is a good fit for everyone, consider the feedback from those with similar usage patterns to yourself as a guide to what will fit you best.

What customers actually said

Rather than relying solely on summary statistics, we thought it would be useful to include a selection of the actual comments submitted during the trial.

Names and email addresses have been removed, but the comments themselves have been left as provided by the testers.

Servings Per Week Usage Profile	Preferred Sample	Full Comment
Heavy usage (~3/week)	Square (Old 9g)	Square labeled sample clearly had better, stronger, and longer lasting focus effects. No real mood elevation present in either sample. The square sample seemed better than the last release of Excelsior for sure. The triangle sample had minimal focus effects and a chemical taste. I would pay for the square version.
Occasional usage (<1/week)	Square (Old 9g)	A Square was on the back of my packet. It was much closer to the original, even on 1/4 of the dose I would normally do.
Occasional usage (<1/week)	O (Old 6g)	I took the z sample and didn't feel much effect. Then I took the o sample and equally didn't feel like it was any good. But then I had a really good session so.
Moderate usage (1-2/week)	Sample Z (New 6g)	Sample Z slightly better than Sample O, but neither as good as the Excelsior batches of 2025 (expiry dates). Comparability has been ensured by following a two-week stim break before testing the triangle sample (first test) and a 5 day stim break before testing the square sample (second test). Powerlifting style leg day for both tests, large protein-rich meal at least 2h before the test, small easily digestible carb snack 30min before training, pre workout intake 30min before training.
Moderate usage (1-2/week)	Triangle (New 9g)	Both samples surprisingly weighed in at 8.9g opposed to 6g excelsior standard serving size. Since no serving size in grams was given on the sample sachets, i stuck to the standard excelsior serving size of 6g. Triangle Sample:Pleasant taste although not exactly reminiscent of older excelsior batches.Solid energy, good mood and training-drive for hours. Way longer effects duration than square sample and more pleasant feeling while training (no elevated heart rate, no jitters).Would buy and recommend Square Sample:Pleasant taste as well, similar to batch 09/28, would prefer the taste of triangle sample though.Feeling while training was way less enjoyable (high heart rate, jitters), energy felt "peakier" nur less prolonged.
Very high usage (~18/week)	Neither	Both samples were very poor, I have been purchasing excelsior for many years, including up to the last batch and seen the steady decline in the quality of this product, sadly both samples were nothing like the old excelsior, very very mild euphoria, little focus, completely different taste I did notice a higher thermal effect than usual.
Moderate usage (1-2/week)	Triangle (New 9g)	Triangle-marked Sample:Great taste, solid mood elevation and especially tons of energy and drive to workout more more while feeling way less fatigue.Came also with quite some appetite suppression.=> Superb Pre-Workout Square-marked Sample:Good taste, nearly no mood elevation and also only a fraction of the energy the other sample provided. The focus was solid, but nothing outstanding.=> "Okay" Pre-Workout, but personally, the lack of energy and drive for the workout is a show-stopper. Notes: I did the exact same Workout for a best as possible comparison and can provide even more details if wanted / necessary since i documented it quite detailed.For the records: both samples did contain 9g of powder. Usualy, Excelsior was 6g per serving.
Light-moderate usage (~1/week)	Neither	I had a batch of excelsior in the past which was the 07/26 and that was by far the best pre I've ever had. However unfortunately neither of these samples lived up to the effects that batch provided.
Heavy usage (~6/week)	Triangle (New 9g)	My preferred option was good. Not as strong as the excelsior but lots of focus and energy and would defintly buy.....much better than last batch. The other sample was not good....i crashed after an hour. Came home and slept for an hour....not good
Occasional usage(<1/week)	Sample Z (New 6g)	Z was ok, but clearly O sample had no effect.
Moderate usage (~3/week)	Triangle (New 9g)	The square one (which I took first) where the effects were almost non-existent. I've been an excelsior user for the last 6 years and that particular batch was as good as a regular coffee. The triangle version was a bit better however nothing like the original.

---