Ask three suppliers what “80% Centella glycosides” means and you may get three different answers — and possibly three different products. The naming around Centella asiatica specifications has become genuinely confusing: Total Glycosides, Total Triterpenes, CICA, and TECA all sound like they describe the same thing, but two of them are nearly identical while a third contains a fundamentally different compound mix. This guide breaks down what each name actually means, using real batch data, so you can specify what your formulation actually needs.
The Short Answer
Total Glycosides and Total Triterpenes are, in practice, nearly the same product — at the standardization levels commonly sold (40% and 70%), the acid (aglycone) content is typically below 1%, so the “triterpene” total is almost entirely glycoside. CICA is a different animal: it deliberately combines glycosides and acids, and — as real production data shows below — two batches labeled identically can have very different internal chemistry even when the total percentage matches. For the underlying chemistry of glycosides versus acids, see Asiaticoside vs Madecassoside; this article focuses on what the combined-percentage grades actually contain.
Glycosides vs Acids: A One-Sentence Refresher
Asiaticoside and madecassoside are glycosides — sugar-attached, and the compounds most published research works with. Strip the sugar off and you get the corresponding acids: asiatic acid and madecassic acid. Both classes occur naturally in Centella asiatica, but in very different proportions depending on how the extract is processed. For the mechanism differences between the two glycosides — which pathway each one drives — see the full comparison linked above; this article stays focused on specification, not mechanism.
Total Glycosides vs Total Triterpenes: Why They’re Nearly the Same Thing
“Total Triterpenes” sounds like it should include the acid fraction — triterpenes, after all, is the broader chemical class that covers both glycosides and their aglycones. In practice, at the 40% and 70% standardization levels most commonly supplied, the acid content is negligible.
| Grade | Asiaticoside | Madecassoside | Asiaticoside B | Asiatic Acid | Combined Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Triterpenes 70% | 10.37% | 25.56% | 35.65% | <1% (not detected) | 71.58% |
| Total Triterpenes 40% | 10.54% | 17.44% | 13.45% | <1% (not detected) | 41.52% |
In both of these production batches, the acid fraction did not register as a separate line item — the entire “Total Triterpenes” figure is accounted for by the three glycosides (asiaticoside, madecassoside, and asiaticoside B). This is why, at these two standardization levels, Total Triterpenes ≈ Total Glycosides — the name difference reflects a marketing or historical convention more than a compositional one. If a supplier’s COA for either of these grades shows meaningful asiatic acid or madecassic acid content, that’s worth a second look — it suggests a different processing method than the batches shown here.
CICA 80%: Where the Real Complexity Lives
CICA is not a glycoside-only grade. It combines the glycoside fraction with the acid fraction deliberately, landing at a combined total around 80%. This is the specification where sourcing gets genuinely tricky — and where two batches carrying the identical “CICA 80%” label can differ substantially in what they actually deliver.
Here is real production data from two CICA 80% batches, both meeting the same nominal specification:
| Component | Batch A | Batch B |
|---|---|---|
| Asiaticoside | 26.38% | 7.65% |
| Madecassoside | 3.49% | 15.34% |
| Asiaticoside B | 1.35% | 9.24% |
| Asiatic Acid | 10.55% | 10.68% |
| Madecassic Acid | 40.38% | 40.11% |
| Total Glycosides | 31.22% | 32.23% |
| Total Acids | 50.93% | 50.79% |
| Combined Total | 82.15% | 83.02% |
The overall glycoside-to-acid split is remarkably consistent between these two batches — roughly 31–32% total glycosides to 51% total acids in both. But look inside the glycoside fraction and the picture flips entirely. Batch A is asiaticoside-dominant (26.38% vs 3.49% madecassoside, a ratio of roughly 7.6:1). Batch B is madecassoside-dominant instead (15.34% vs 7.65% asiaticoside, roughly 2:1 the other way). Same nominal grade, same total percentage, opposite internal chemistry.
This matters in practice because asiaticoside and madecassoside are associated with different research pathways — collagen type I activity versus NF-κB anti-inflammatory activity, respectively (see Asiaticoside vs Madecassoside for the mechanism detail). A CICA 80% batch that happens to be asiaticoside-heavy will skew toward one research framing; a madecassoside-heavy batch skews toward the other — even though both COAs report an identical 80% headline figure.
If your formulation or claims strategy depends on a specific pathway bias, the total percentage alone does not tell you enough. Request the individual HPLC breakdown — asiaticoside, madecassoside, asiaticoside B, asiatic acid, and madecassic acid reported separately — on every batch, not just at initial qualification.
TECA 95%: A Different Point on the Spectrum
TECA sits at a higher combined total and, structurally, leans acid-dominant rather than glycoside-dominant. Real production data from a TECA 95% batch:
| Component | Content |
|---|---|
| Asiaticoside | 36.96% |
| Asiatic Acid | 11.12% |
| Madecassic Acid | 47.09% |
| Total Acids | 58.21% |
| Combined Total | 95.17% |
TECA 95% HPLC chromatogram By Valeherb LAB
TECA 95% By Valeherb LAB
Notice the ratio: roughly 37% glycoside to 58% acid — close to a 39:61 split. This is worth comparing to the classic pharmaceutical TECA definition of 40% asiaticoside to 60% combined acids (asiatic acid + madecassic acid), the ratio behind the original Madecassol® formulation used in decades of European clinical literature. The commercial TECA 95% grade shown here follows essentially the same proportional logic, just scaled to a 95% combined total rather than 100%. For the full history of that classic ratio, why it excludes madecassoside entirely, and how to read TECA-based clinical literature, see What Is TECA? Titrated Extract of Centella Asiatica — this article won’t repeat that ground.
Sourcing Decision Table
| Grade | What It Contains | Best For | What to Verify |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asiaticoside 90% | Single glycoside, purified | Collagen type I pathway positioning | Poor water solubility (~0.1 mg/mL) — requires ethanol/propylene glycol pre-dissolution |
| Madecassoside 90% | Single glycoside, purified | NF-κB / anti-inflammatory pathway positioning | Genuinely water-soluble (~1 mg/mL) — no co-solvent needed |
| Total Glycosides 80% | Asiaticoside + madecassoside + asiaticoside B, combined | Broad “cica” positioning without isolating one pathway | Request the asiaticoside:madecassoside ratio — it varies by batch |
| Total Triterpenes 40% / 70% | Effectively the same as Total Glycosides at these levels | Same as above — the name is largely historical | Confirm acid content is genuinely negligible, not just assumed |
| CICA 80% | Glycosides + acids, combined — internal ratio batch-variable | Formulations referencing both compound classes | Individual HPLC breakdown, every batch — see data above |
| TECA 95% | Glycoside + acids, acid-dominant, close to classic 40:60 ratio | Positioning referencing classic TECA clinical literature | Confirm this is the modern 95% commercial grade, not classic 100% TECA — see the dedicated TECA article |
What to Do Once You’ve Picked a Grade
Choosing the right specification is the first decision. The second is handling it correctly in your formulation — and this is where asiaticoside and madecassoside diverge sharply. Asiaticoside has poor intrinsic water solubility and needs an ethanol or propylene glycol pre-dissolution step; madecassoside disperses directly into an aqueous phase. This distinction applies whether you’re working with the 90% single-compound grades or a combined grade like CICA or TECA where both compound classes are present. For the full formulation walkthrough — phase matching, pH stability, and delivery-system considerations — see Centella Asiatica Extract for Skin: Formulation Guide.
For madecassoside’s full mechanism profile and stability data specifically, see What Is Madecassoside? Compound Guide.
For full grade specifications, COA documentation, and current pricing across all six specifications discussed here, see Valeherb’s Centella asiatica extract product page.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CICA in Centella asiatica extract?
Is CICA the same as TECA?
Why does CICA 80% stay consistent in total but the glycoside ratio changes between batches?
Is Total Triterpenes the same as Total Glycosides?
References
[1] Kunjumon R, Johnson AJ, Remadevi RKS, Baby S. Assessment of major centelloside ratios in Centella asiatica accessions grown under identical ecological conditions, bioconversion clues and identification of elite lines. Sci Rep. 2022;12:8204. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-12077-9
[2] European Medicines Agency. Assessment report on Centella asiatica (L.) Urban, herba. EMA/HMPC/291177/2009. EMA document
[3] Tan SC, Bhattamisra SK, Chellappan DK, Candasamy M. Actions and therapeutic potential of madecassoside and other major constituents of Centella asiatica: A review. Appl Sci. 2021;11(18):8475. doi:10.3390/app11188475
[4] Compositional data (Total Triterpenes 40%/70%, CICA 80%, TECA 95% batches) from Valeherb internal production COAs, HPLC method, 2026.
