hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 29-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 93 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 →
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 →
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: ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
9 ratings · 3 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.
Data availability
Robust26 of 27 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 26 of 27 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (5)
IARC probable carcinogen (Group 2A)flagged by 5 of 9 lists
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists
Persistent / bioaccumulativeflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (21)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.