hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 28-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 418 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 →
Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 57% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
5 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
Robust14 of 14 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 14 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (6)
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (8)
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.