Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 30-point gap between the two loudest voices.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 64% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Wella as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
6 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
Robust14 of 14 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 14 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (5)
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 3 of 9 lists
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (9)
Where this came from
Cruelty-free status recorded from crueltyfree.peta.org ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.