Short answer
Apigenin and luteolin are both flavones and they differ by exactly one hydroxyl group. Luteolin carries an extra hydroxyl at the 3′ position, which turns its B-ring into a catechol; apigenin does not. Everything a formulator actually has to plan around follows from that single difference, plus one sourcing fact: bulk luteolin is frequently extracted from peanut shell, while apigenin usually arrives by a chamomile, parsley or synthetic route. Both are practically insoluble in water and both are strongly yellow, so in a modern format the real decisions are solubilisation, colour control, allergen documentation and assay basis — not which molecule is better.
This page compares ingredient forms and their behaviour in manufacturing. It does not compare health outcomes, and nothing here is a claim about what either material does in the body.
Apigenin vs luteolin at a glance
| Property | Apigenin | Luteolin |
|---|---|---|
| Chemical class | Flavone (4′,5,7-trihydroxyflavone) | Flavone (3′,4′,5,7-tetrahydroxyflavone) |
| Formula / molecular weight | C15H10O5, about 270.2 | C15H10O6, about 286.2 |
| Structural difference | No hydroxyl at the 3′ position; single hydroxyl on the B-ring | Extra 3′ hydroxyl gives a catechol (3′,4′-dihydroxy) B-ring |
| Common commercial source | Chamomile (Matricaria) and parsley extract routes; synthetic material also offered | Frequently peanut (Arachis hypogaea) shell extract; other botanical and synthetic routes exist |
| Allergen question to ask | Botanical source and plant part on the spec | Whether the source is peanut shell, and what the allergen statement says |
| Typical glycoside form on plant extracts | Apigenin-7-O-glucoside (apigetrin); apiin in parsley | Luteolin-7-O-glucoside (cynaroside) |
| Aglycone share of the 7-O-glucoside | About 62% by weight (270.2 of 432.4) | About 64% by weight (286.2 of 448.4) |
| Water solubility | Practically insoluble | Practically insoluble |
| Reported melting point | Above 340 degrees Celsius | Above 320 degrees Celsius |
| Heat exposure in processing | Not a limiting factor for depositing or hot-fill | Not a limiting factor for depositing or hot-fill |
| Colour contribution | Yellow; the more colour-stable of the two | Yellow; catechol ring raises oxidation and metal-chelation driven colour drift risk |
| Behaviour with iron or copper in a premix | Lower chelation tendency | Higher chelation tendency; separate or protect where possible |
| Assay method to confirm | HPLC, aglycone basis | HPLC, aglycone basis |
| Format fit as neat powder | Capsule, tablet, powder blend, gummy as a suspension | Capsule, tablet, powder blend, gummy as a suspension |
| Clear beverage or fast-dissolve stick pack | Needs a solubilised or co-processed form | Needs a solubilised or co-processed form |
| Claim posture on this site | Structure and function only; no outcome claims | Structure and function only; no outcome claims |
Choose apigenin if…
- Your concept is built around a chamomile or evening-routine story and you want the aglycone rather than a standardised botanical extract.
- Your formula contains an iron or copper premix, sits at a higher pH, or has to survive light exposure in a clear pack — apigenin is the more colour-stable of the two.
- You need to avoid a peanut-derived source question in your allergen documentation and on your label.
- You are formulating a capsule, tablet or powder blend where the aglycone can be used as supplied.
Choose luteolin if…
- Your label or formula specifies luteolin by name, often alongside other flavonoid lines such as quercetin or rutin.
- You can accommodate a peanut shell derived source together with its allergen statement and testing, or you have qualified a non-peanut route and confirmed it on the specification.
- You are working in a system without a reactive mineral premix, or you can separate the flavone from the mineral phase.
- You want a flavone with a catechol B-ring for reasons your own formulation team has defined and documented.
Consider a solubilised or co-processed form if…
- The finished format is a clear ready-to-drink, a shot, or a stick pack that has to dissolve rather than disperse.
- You need consistent content uniformity at a low inclusion level in a large batch, where a fine neat powder tends to segregate.
- You are trying to reduce visible speckling in a light-coloured gummy or soft chew.
Neat apigenin and neat luteolin will not dissolve in water. In a gummy or a beverage they are present as a suspension, which is a legitimate approach as long as the process and the specification are written for it.
Formulation notes for both flavones
The assay basis is where most price comparisons go wrong
Plant extracts in this family are commonly standardised to a glycoside, not to the free aglycone. Apigenin-7-O-glucoside has a molecular weight of roughly 432.4 against 270.2 for apigenin itself, so the aglycone accounts for about 62% by weight; apiin, the apiosylglucoside found in parsley, brings that share below 50%. Luteolin-7-O-glucoside runs about 448.4 against 286.2, so roughly 64%. A quoted percentage means nothing until you know whether it is aglycone basis or glycoside basis, and by which method. Ask for HPLC on an aglycone basis in writing; a UV-based figure on a strongly coloured flavone can read higher than the same lot measured chromatographically.
Colour is a formulation input, not a surprise
Both materials are yellow pigments. At the inclusion levels used in practice they will tint a white powder blend, a pale gummy or a beverage. Decide early whether that colour is part of the product design or something the formula has to mask, because retrofitting colour correction late is expensive.
Luteolin needs more protection than apigenin
The catechol B-ring that distinguishes luteolin is more readily oxidised and chelates metal ions more strongly. In practice that means paying attention to iron and copper in a premix, to pH, and to light and oxygen exposure in the pack. None of this makes luteolin difficult to work with; it means the stability protocol should be written for it rather than copied from a more inert active.
Heat is not the constraint here
Both flavones are reported to melt well above 320 degrees Celsius, so neither is limited by gummy depositing, hot-fill or standard drying temperatures — a contrast worth noting against lower-melting actives, where the process window itself can rule a material out. See our pterostilbene vs resveratrol comparison for a case where melting point genuinely does decide the format.
Low inclusion levels demand blend discipline
Both are typically used at small inclusion levels as fine, low-density powders. Pre-blending, controlled addition order and content uniformity testing matter more than they would for a bulk excipient, and dust control belongs in the process description.
Documentation and how to verify
Request these before a sample decision, and read them before the sample arrives:
- COA stating the assay method (HPLC preferred) and the basis (aglycone or glycoside).
- Specification covering appearance, particle size, loss on drying, residual solvents and heavy metals.
- Botanical source and plant part, stated explicitly — for luteolin this is the item that tells you whether you are buying a peanut shell extract.
- Allergen statement from the manufacturing site, including cross-contact controls.
- Microbiological limits and the test methods used.
- Stability data where available, ideally in a format resembling yours rather than as a sealed-drum figure alone.
- Method documentation so your own QC laboratory can reproduce the assay.
Our general guidance on reading these files is in how to verify a supplier COA, and current certifications are listed on our quality and certifications page.
What we do not claim
- We make no statement that apigenin or luteolin treats, prevents, diagnoses or cures any condition, and no calming, sleep, cognitive, senolytic or anti-inflammatory outcome claim is made or implied for either material.
- We do not offer a bioavailability comparison between the two. Published work exists; it is not our data, and we will not present someone else’s study as a supplier claim.
- We do not assert that either material is suitable for any particular population or product category. That determination belongs to the brand and its regulatory reviewer.
- Regulatory status is specific to a material, a producer and a specification, and it does not transfer with a purchase order.
- Comparisons on this page are between ingredient forms and their measurable properties. No competitor or brand is named or evaluated.
Related guides
- Fisetin vs quercetin — the flavonol side of the same decision set, including the quercetin dihydrate basis trap.
- Calm-focus and sleep-support ingredients — the category pillar this comparison sits under.
- Pterostilbene vs resveratrol — where melting point, not solubility, drives the format decision.
- Apigenin 98% (SomniGenin™) and Luteolin 98% — the two ingredient pages.
- All ingredient selection guides.
Frequently asked questions
Are apigenin and luteolin the same kind of compound?
Both are flavones, and they differ by a single hydroxyl group. Apigenin is 4′,5,7-trihydroxyflavone; luteolin is 3′,4′,5,7-tetrahydroxyflavone. That one extra hydroxyl at the 3′ position gives luteolin a catechol B-ring, which is why the two materials behave differently toward oxidation, metal ions and colour drift even though they look almost identical on paper.
What does apigenin mean on a chamomile extract spec sheet?
Usually not the same thing it means on a 98% aglycone spec. Chamomile and parsley extracts are commonly standardised to an apigenin glycoside rather than to free apigenin. Apigenin-7-O-glucoside has a molecular weight of about 432.4 against 270.2 for the aglycone, so the apigenin portion is roughly 62% by weight; for apiin, the apiosylglucoside found in parsley, the aglycone portion is under 50%. Ask which basis the number is on before you compare two offers.
Where does commercial luteolin usually come from?
A large share of bulk luteolin on the market is extracted from peanut (Arachis hypogaea) shell, and it is often sold under the name peanut shell extract. Other botanical routes and synthetic material exist. The shell carries far less allergenic protein than the kernel, but the material is still peanut-derived, so confirm the botanical source and plant part on the specification and request the supplier’s allergen statement before it reaches label copy.
Which of the two is more likely to cause colour drift in a finished format?
Luteolin, in most systems. Its catechol B-ring is more readily oxidised and chelates metal ions more strongly, so mineral premixes containing iron or copper, higher pH, light and oxygen exposure all raise the risk of darkening. Apigenin lacks that catechol and is generally the more colour-stable of the two. Both are strongly yellow at meaningful inclusion levels, so plan the colour rather than discover it in a stability run.
Can either one be used in a clear beverage?
Not as the neat aglycone. Both apigenin and luteolin are practically insoluble in water, so a clear ready-to-drink or a stick pack that has to dissolve needs a solubilised, co-processed or otherwise formulated form rather than the raw powder. Heat is not the constraint here — both melt above 320 degrees Celsius, so unlike some lower-melting actives they are not limited by gummy depositing or hot-fill temperatures. Solubility is the constraint.
What documents should we request before sampling?
Ask for a COA that states the assay method and the basis, a specification, the botanical source and plant part, residual solvent and heavy metal results, microbiological limits, an allergen statement, and any available stability data. For a 98% number, confirm whether it is by HPLC and on an aglycone basis; a UV-based figure on a strongly coloured flavone can read higher than the same material measured chromatographically.
Request a sample, COA or spec
Tell us the finished format, the target inclusion level and whether you need an aglycone or a standardised extract, and we will send the specification, a current COA and an allergen statement for the exact material. Sampling follows once the documentation fits.
Request a sample, COA or spec → · [email protected] · (909) 745-1357 · Nutrition BioTech, 1601 W. Mission Blvd, Suite 103 (DL#29), Pomona, CA 91766