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/Kiehl's/Ultra Facial Cleanser, For all skin types (2020 formulation)
Ultra Facial Cleanser, For all skin types (2020 formulation)
Kiehl's

Ultra Facial Cleanser, For all skin types (2020 formulation)

Facial Cleanser

Kiehl's

Ultra Facial Cleanser, For all skin types (2020 formulation)

Facial Cleanser

hover a pillar to set the scene →

Your composite

67OUT OF 100Fair

range 64–73

—
Labor

Why this score

28-point split

80

Scan

60

Precautionary

88

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

423 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 28-point gap between the two loudest voices.

60Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
88Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

Cleaner options

See 423 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 →

  • 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 →

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

✓US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 74% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

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·25 of 27 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 25 of 27 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Worth a look (6)

  • Triethanolamine8/10fragrance · buffering · surfactant - cleansingraters disagree

    ANSES CMR-listed · flagged by 3 of 9 lists

  • Cocamidopropyl Betaine6/10antistatic · cleansing · hair conditioningraters disagree

    Strong contact sensitizer · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

  • Acrylates Copolymer4/10film forming · antistatic · bindingraters disagree

    EU microplastics-restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

  • Phenoxyethanol4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

    Mild sensitizer for some · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

  • Sodium Hydroxide4/10buffering · denaturantraters disagree

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

  • Citric Acid4/10fragrance · chelating · bufferingraters disagree

    Health Canada Hotlist — restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

✓No flags in our sources (19)

  • Water
  • Sodium Laureth Sulfate
  • Decyl Glucoside
  • Glycerin
  • Lauryl Glucoside
  • PEG-200 Hydrogenated Glyceryl Palmate
  • Sodium Chloride
  • Pentylene Glycol
  • PEG-7 Glyceryl Cocoate
  • Hexylene Glycol
  • Behenyl Alcohol
  • Distearyl Ether
  • Sodium Benzoate
  • Laureth-2
  • Squalane
  • Prunus Amygdalus Dulcis Oil
  • Prunus Armeniaca Kernel Oil
  • Tocopherol
  • Ascorbyl Glucoside

No data in our sources (2)

  • Disodium Cocamphodiacetate
  • Persea Gratissium Oil

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