hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 20-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 226 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 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 53% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
6 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 15 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 14 of 15 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (11)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.