hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 29-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 401 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
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
Robust30 of 31 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 30 of 31 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 5 of 9 lists
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (27)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
Where this came from
Cruelty-free status recorded from leapingbunny.org ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.