All Over Deodorant

Deodorant$12 MSRPGTIN 878639016729

Cleaner pick · Safest deodorant we have rated

Primally Pure

Geranium Deodorant

+45 on ingredient safety

$16

Ingredient safetyRaters agree

Find on Amazon See all 1542 cleaner options 3 in this price band or under

Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.

Cleaner options

1542 found

See better →

Flagged

1 ingredient

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent

vs

100Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent

050100

See why, ingredient by ingredient

All 1542 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

58 pts apart

Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)

Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 63% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Environmental

Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

Labor

raters agree

Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Every Man Jack as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

Packaging

Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. We started showing this score on Sep 11, 2026. about this rater →

Coverage & match quality

6 ratings · 3 of 4 axes

Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
Fewer raters reach smaller-brand products, so a missing rating is not a clean bill of health, only a gap.

Weighted by what you care about

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

+

Ingredient safety1.0×

Environmentalno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

Labor1.0×

Packaging1.0×

0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

What we know about the packaging

Unidentified0 of 1 identified

Nobody recorded what this pack is actually made of beyond “plastic”, so the packaging score is a stand-in for the middle of that range — not a reading of this container.

Recorded only as “plastic” — no resin code. It could be PET (#1) (widely recyclable) or PVC (#3) (hard to recycle); nothing on record says which, so it counts as 46 out of 100, the middle of that range.

This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.

How we know the packaging

Read from the product photo, not declared by the maker — treat this score as weaker.

The container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. A photo also cannot show the resin code moulded into the base, so every plastic container reads as “plastic, unspecified” — the cautious end of the plastics range, not a finding about this particular pack.

Ingredients, decoded

Data availability

Robust19 of 19 characterized

Our sources have reference data on all 19 listed ingredients.

Worth a look (1)

Where this came from

Cruelty-free status recorded from crueltyfree.peta.org ↗

Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.

Fragrance/Parfumundeclared fragrance blendperfumingraters disagree

Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →

No flags in our sources (18)

What these ingredient tags mean (2)

These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.

comedogenic in testingIsopropyl Palmitate
- Isopropyl Palmitate: A light emollient named among the pore-clogging materials in the rabbit-ear assay. Fulton JE Jr, Pay SR, Fulton JE 3rd, "Comedogenicity of current therapeutic products, cosmetics, and ingredients in the rabbit ear", J Am Acad Dermatol 1984;10(1):96-105, PMID 6229554. The openly readable abstract names this ingredient among its "ingredient offenders", in prose and without a numeric rating: "Ingredient offenders include isopropyl myristate and its analogs, such as isopropyl palmitate, isopropyl isostearate, butyl stearate, isostearyl neopentanoate, myristyl myristate..." The rabbit-ear assay rates raw ingredients and does not predict how a finished formula behaves on human skin.
undeclared fragrance blendFragrance/Parfum
- Fragrance/Parfum: A blend the label does not itemize, so what is in it cannot be read from the ingredient list. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 permits the collective term "parfum"; the SCCS Opinion on Fragrance Allergens (SCCS/1459/11) reviews the contact-allergy evidence for the substances it can contain.