hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 50-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 2091 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 →
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: EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 52% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
5 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
Robust29 of 29 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 29 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (2)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 5 of 9 lists
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (27)