hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 3493 cleaner alternatives
Same category, all safer. We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
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 →
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 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 56% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
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
Robust18 of 18 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 18 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (7)
EU harmonised CMR (cat. 1)flagged by 1 of 9 lists
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 3 of 9 lists
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists
Transparency concernflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (11)