Greenlens

Every public rating on one cosmetic, the places they disagree kept visible, and a single score whose weighting you control.

Navigate

  • Browse
  • In your home
  • Ask Sonion
  • Methodology
  • Criteria
  • Extension
  • How scoring works
  • Account

The one rule

We never blend a score that hides who disagrees. Funding model travels with every rating. Weights are computed at read time and never stored.

Cosmetics only · lead with safetyProduct data from public sources incl. Open Beauty Facts & EWG Skin Deep · their ratings never scraped or shown
As an Amazon Associate, Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Affiliate income never changes a rating or ranking.PrivacyTerms
Catalog/CoverGirl/Queen Collection Oil-Free Moisturizing Make up, Amber Glow
CoverGirl

Queen Collection Oil-Free Moisturizing Make up, Amber Glow

BB Cream
Barrier Reboot Daily Moisturizer

Cleaner pick · Safest moisturizers we have rated

Anua US

Barrier Reboot Daily Moisturizer

+45 on ingredient safety

$24

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 2794 cleaner options →

Ranked by safety only. We may earn a commission on the link; it never changes the order.

Your composite

52OUT OF 100Poor

range 49–62

55▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
55
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

30-point split

70

Scan

52

Precautionary

82

Tolerance

See why →
Find on Amazon↗

Affiliate link. We may earn a commission. It never changes a rating.

In your home

Sort this into a room

Cleaner options

2794 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 40-point gap between the two loudest voices.

45ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs
85Health Canada Ingredient HotlistGovernment
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 2794 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

40 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • 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 →

  • 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 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Labor

    • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

    Packaging

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

    Coverage & match quality

    9 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

    +
    1.0×
    Environmentalno rating

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

    1.0×
    1.0×
    0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

    What we know about the packaging

    Unidentified·0 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

    Nobody published the material for this product, so it was read from the product photo — the container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. Treat the packaging score as weaker here than on a product with a declared material.

    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

    Robust·24 of 24 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on all 24 listed ingredients.

    Worth a look (5)

    • Titanium Dioxide8/10uv filter · uv absorber · colorantraters disagree

      ANSES CMR-listed · flagged by 5 of 9 lists

    • Propylparaben7/10preservative · perfumingraters disagree

      Endocrine-active · flagged by 4 of 9 lists

    • Talc6/10abrasive · absorbent · anticakingraters disagree

      IARC probable carcinogen (Group 2A) · flagged by 5 of 9 lists

    • Cyclopentasiloxane4/10emollient · hair conditioning · skin conditioningraters disagree

      Persistent / bioaccumulative · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    • Phenoxyethanol4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

      Mild sensitizer for some · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    ✓No flags in our sources (19)

    • Water
    • Glycerin
    • Sodium Chloride
    • PEG/PPG 18/18 Dimethicone
    • Arachidyl Behenate
    • Sodium Dehydroacetate
    • Stearic Acid
    • Ethylene Brassylate
    • Trihydroxystearin
    • Trisodium EDTA
    • Silica
    • Dimethicone
    • Synthetic Wax
    • Laureth 7
    • Barium Sulfate
    • Aluminum Hydroxide
    • Methicone
    • Iron Oxides
    • Mica