Dasuquin vs Cosequin: Which Joint Supplement Is Different?

The practical difference: Cosequin and Dasuquin are not single formulas. Both product lines include glucosamine and chondroitin options, and both offer products with MSM. Dasuquin’s defining addition is avocado/soybean unsaponifiables (ASU). That makes Dasuquin the broader formula—not a proven better treatment for every dog or cat.

For a fair comparison, match the species, product form, weight range, active ingredients and daily serving. “Dasuquin vs Cosequin” alone is too vague to settle the choice.

The main formula difference

Using current dog soft-chew labels as an example:

Per soft chew	Dasuquin with MSM, small/medium dog	Dasuquin with MSM, large dog	Cosequin soft chew with MSM and Boswellia
Glucosamine hydrochloride	600 mg	900 mg	600 mg
MSM	400 mg	800 mg	400 mg
Sodium chondroitin sulfate	250 mg	350 mg	300 mg
ASU powder	45 mg	90 mg	None listed
Boswellia extract	20 mg	40 mg	30 mg
Green tea extract	16 mg	32 mg	None listed

These amounts come from the manufacturers’ current product pages for Dasuquin with MSM and Cosequin with MSM and Boswellia. They illustrate why the exact package matters: another Cosequin form has a different MSM amount. Its chewable tablet supplies 600 mg glucosamine, 300 mg chondroitin, 250 mg MSM and 3 mg manganese per tablet—not the 400 mg MSM in the soft chew (Cosequin label).

Dasuquin also comes without MSM. The corresponding dog soft chews list glucosamine, chondroitin, ASU, Boswellia and green tea extract but no MSM (Dasuquin label). Therefore, the Dasuquin name does not guarantee MSM, and the Cosequin name does not mean MSM is absent.

Does ASU make Dasuquin better?

It makes Dasuquin different. It does not, by itself, establish better pain relief.

The manufacturer says Dasuquin’s ASU works with glucosamine and chondroitin, but the supporting discussion on its product page centers on cell-culture effects and markers involved in cartilage breakdown (Dasuquin product information). Those mechanistic findings are not the same outcome as a dog walking more comfortably.

A six-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial provides a more useful reality check. It assigned 75 dogs with hip osteoarthritis among five groups; 16 received Dasuquin with MSM. That formula contained glucosamine, chondroitin, MSM and ASU. The Dasuquin group did not achieve significant improvement in peak vertical force, an objective measure of limb loading, while carprofen and two marine-fatty-acid products did. Orthopedic assessment scores did not significantly change in any group (trial report).

That trial does not prove Dasuquin never helps. It was short, involved one canine joint condition and did not compare Dasuquin directly with a matched Cosequin formula. It does mean that the added ingredients have not established clinical superiority over Cosequin in a head-to-head trial cited here.

The wider glucosamine-chondroitin literature is also inconsistent. A critical veterinary review found few well-designed canine studies, different formulations and conflicting outcomes; it described the efficacy evidence as low quality (review). This is why an ingredient-rich label should not be read as a guaranteed treatment effect.

What about cats?

Do not transfer a dog label, serving or result to a cat. Feline Dasuquin is a separate formulation.

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 59 cats with degenerative joint disease pain entered treatment with feline Dasuquin or placebo. The tested capsule contained 125 mg glucosamine, 100 mg chondroitin and 25 mg ASU. After six weeks, the supplement did not show pain relief versus placebo, and there was no overall between-group activity benefit (feline trial).

That result applies to the tested feline product and population. It is not evidence about a dog formula or about MSM, because the tested cat capsule did not contain MSM.

Is more MSM a reason to choose Dasuquin?

Not automatically. On the compared labels, a large-dog Dasuquin with MSM chew contains 800 mg MSM, while the selected Cosequin soft chew contains 400 mg. But the manufacturers use weight-based initial and maintenance schedules, so the meaningful comparison is milligrams per labeled daily serving, not milligrams per chew.

More MSM is not synonymous with a better outcome. The dog trial above tested a multi-ingredient Dasuquin formula, so it cannot reveal what MSM contributed independently. Human MSM research should not be used to fill that gap: species, formulation, dose and outcome are different. For the same attribution problem in human combination products, see our guide to glucosamine, chondroitin and MSM.

How to choose between them

Choose by the exact label, not the product-family name

Write down:

1. Dog or cat formula
2. Tablet, soft chew or capsule
3. Animal’s weight band
4. Initial daily serving and maintenance serving
5. Daily amounts of glucosamine, chondroitin, MSM and ASU
6. Other ingredients that matter for that animal, including fish oil or soy-derived ingredients
7. Cost per day at the maintenance serving

This prevents two common mistakes: comparing unequal serving sizes and assuming every product under a brand has the same ingredients.

Treat Dasuquin as an ASU-containing option

If a veterinarian specifically wants an ASU-containing formula, Dasuquin is the straightforward distinction. If ASU is not part of the reason for choosing it, compare the remaining ingredients, serving burden and cost with the relevant Cosequin product.

Do not use either product to postpone diagnosis or pain treatment

Cornell’s veterinary guidance recommends consulting a veterinarian before starting a supplement so the underlying orthopedic problem is identified. It also notes that joint supplements are not regulated like medications, ingredient amounts are not governed by a universal daily recommendation, and supplements may be used alongside—not necessarily instead of—anti-inflammatory or pain-relieving treatment (Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine).

In the United States, products marketed as animal dietary supplements do not fall under the human dietary-supplement framework. FDA regulates them as animal food or animal drugs according to their composition and intended use; animal food generally does not receive the premarket review required for an animal drug (FDA). A branded joint supplement should therefore not be treated as if FDA had approved it for osteoarthritis pain.

Bottom line

Dasuquin is mainly the step-up formula because it adds ASU; Cosequin is generally the simpler glucosamine-chondroitin base, although many Cosequin products also add MSM and other ingredients. Neither brand has shown universal superiority, and the available clinical evidence does not justify assuming that more ingredients will produce more pain relief.

If your veterinarian considers either appropriate, compare the exact animal-specific labels and calculate the full daily serving. Choose Dasuquin when ASU is an intentional part of the plan—not merely because the front label looks more comprehensive. Choose a matching Cosequin formula when its ingredient profile, administration and cost fit the plan without paying for additions you did not set out to use.