hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 69-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 192 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 →
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 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65
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
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
Robust7 of 8 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 7 of 8 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 3 of 9 lists
Carcinogen-linkedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (4)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
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.