hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 52-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 1791 cleaner alternatives
Same category, all safer. We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · IARC Monographs · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 56% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
5 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
Robust17 of 18 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 17 of 18 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (4)
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (13)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.