hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 54-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 1620 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: IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65 · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
4 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
Good8 of 11 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 8 of 11 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (6)
Endocrine-activeflagged by 3 of 9 lists
Endocrine-activeflagged by 4 of 9 lists
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 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 (2)
No data in our sources (3)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.