hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 52-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 946 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 →
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 · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)
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 →
Coverage & match quality
5 ratings · 2 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.
Data availability
Robust16 of 16 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 16 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (3)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 3 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (13)