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 safetyOpen data via Open Beauty Facts · no EWG/Yuka scraping
As an Amazon Associate, Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Affiliate income never changes a rating or ranking.PrivacyTerms
Catalog/Too Faced/Disco Crush High Shine Glitter Eye + Face Sparkle, Fairy Dust
Disco Crush High Shine Glitter Eye + Face Sparkle, Fairy Dust
Too Faced

Disco Crush High Shine Glitter Eye + Face Sparkle, Fairy Dust

Eye Shadow

Too Faced

Disco Crush High Shine Glitter Eye + Face Sparkle, Fairy Dust

Eye Shadow

hover a pillar to set the scene →

Your composite

65OUT OF 100Fair

range 63–72

—
Labor

Why this score

23-point split

70

Scan

93

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

1686 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 28-point gap between the two loudest voices.

65ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs
93Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

Cleaner options

See 1686 cleaner alternatives

Same category, all safer. We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

See better →

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

28 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • 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 →

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

✓Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · US NTP Report on Carcinogens

Environmental

  • A government authority. 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

7 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×
1.0×
Laborno rating

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

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·28 of 32 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 28 of 32 listed ingredients; 4 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Worth a look (5)

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

    ANSES CMR-listed · flagged by 5 of 9 lists

  • Polyethylene4/10film forming · abrasive · viscosity controllingraters disagree

    EU microplastics-restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

  • Phenoxyethanol4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

    Mild sensitizer for some · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

  • Blue 1 Lake4/10cosmetic colorant · hair dyeingraters disagree

    EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

  • Yellow 5 Lake4/10cosmetic colorant · hair dyeingraters disagree

    EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

✓No flags in our sources (23)

  • Calcium Sodium Borosilicate
  • Polybutene
  • Silica
  • Isostearyl Neopentanoate
  • Mica
  • Diisostearyl Malate
  • Tocopherol
  • Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate
  • Hydrogenated Polycyclopentadiene
  • Caprylyl Glycol
  • Maltodextrin
  • Tin Oxide
  • Hexylene Glycol
  • Zinc Stearate
  • Iron Oxides
  • Aluminum Powder
  • Bismuth Oxychloride
  • Carmine
  • Chromium Oxide Greens
  • Ferric Ammonium Ferrocyanide
  • Ferric Ferrocyanide
  • Manganese Violet
  • Ultramarines

No data in our sources (4)

  • Copernicia Cerifera Wax\Copernicia Cerifera Cera\Cire De Carnauba
  • Bronze Powder
  • Chromium Hydroxide Green
  • Copper Powder

Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.

Where this came from

Cruelty-free status recorded from crueltyfree.peta.org ↗

Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.