No fair cohort on file, so no comparison.
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
5 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
Robust17 of 19 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 17 of 19 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (14)
No data in our sources (2)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
comedogenic in testingIsopropyl Myristate
undeclared fragrance blendFragrance
rich occlusiveDimethicone
humectantGlycerin
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →