hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 22 cleaner alternatives
Same category, all safer. We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
A government authority. 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 →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
4 ratings · 1 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.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Robust50 of 50 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 50 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (3)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (47)