hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 34-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 1034 cleaner alternatives
Same category, all safer. We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
8 are in this product's price band or under
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 67% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
7 ratings · 3 of 4 axes
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Robust15 of 15 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 15 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (3)
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU harmonised CMR (cat. 2)flagged by 4 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (12)