hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 74-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 197 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 →
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: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65
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
7 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
Robust7 of 7 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 7 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (5)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 3 of 9 lists
Carcinogen-linkedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Carcinogen-linkedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (2)
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.