Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.
A government authority. 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 →
A government authority. 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 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Catrice Cosmetics as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. 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
Good10 of 12 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 10 of 12 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (6)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (4)
No data in our sources (2)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.