hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 41-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 2016 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 →
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 →
A government authority. Low-confidence auto-match — it may describe a different size or variant. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · California Proposition 65
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
8 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
Robust20 of 20 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 20 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (5)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 5 of 9 lists
IARC probable carcinogen (Group 2A)flagged by 5 of 9 lists
Persistent / bioaccumulativeflagged by 2 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (15)