Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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: ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · 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
6 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
Robust28 of 29 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 28 of 29 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (4)
EU harmonised CMR (cat. 2)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (24)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.