Greenlens

Every public rating on one cosmetic, the places they disagree kept visible, and a single score whose weighting you control.

Navigate

  • Browse
  • In your home
  • Ask Sonion
  • Methodology
  • Criteria
  • Extension
  • How scoring works
  • Account

The one rule

We never blend a score that hides who disagrees. Funding model travels with every rating. Weights are computed at read time and never stored.

Cosmetics only · lead with safetyProduct data from public sources incl. Open Beauty Facts & EWG Skin Deep · their ratings never scraped or shown
As an Amazon Associate, Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Affiliate income never changes a rating or ranking.PrivacyTerms
Catalog/Colourpop/Super Shock Blush, Cuter than Cupid
Colourpop

Super Shock Blush, Cuter than Cupid

Blush$12 MSRP
maracuja juicy blush & bronzer multi-stick

Cleaner pick · Safest face we have rated

Tarte

maracuja juicy blush & bronzer multi-stick

+58 on ingredient safety, gives up 11 on labor practices

$38

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 14303 cleaner options →6 in this price band or under

Ranked by safety only. We may earn a commission on the link; it never changes the order.

Your composite

58OUT OF 100Fair

range 51–75

42▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
85
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

23-point split

70

Scan

93

Precautionary

82

Tolerance

See why →
Find on Amazon↗

Affiliate link. We may earn a commission. It never changes a rating.

In your home

Sort this into a room

Cleaner options

14303 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 71-point gap between the two loudest voices.

22IARC MonographsGovernment
vs
93Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 14303 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

71 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • A government authority. 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 →

  • 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 →

✓Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Labor

    • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

    Packaging

    • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

    Coverage & match quality

    8 ratings · 3 of 4 axes

    • Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
    • Fewer raters reach smaller-brand products, so a missing rating is not a clean bill of health, only a gap.

    Weighted by what you care about

    Tune your weights

    composite recomputes live

    +
    1.0×
    Environmentalno rating

    No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

    1.0×
    1.0×
    0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

    What we know about the packaging

    Unidentified·0 of 1 identified

    Nobody recorded what this pack is actually made of beyond “plastic”, so the packaging score is a stand-in for the middle of that range — not a reading of this container.

    • Recorded only as “plastic” — no resin code. It could be PET (#1) (widely recyclable) or PVC (#3) (hard to recycle); nothing on record says which, so it counts as 46 out of 100, the middle of that range.

    This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.

    How we know the packaging

    Nobody published the material for this product, so it was read from the product photo — the container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. Treat the packaging score as weaker here than on a product with a declared material.

    A photo also cannot show the resin code moulded into the base, so every plastic container reads as “plastic, unspecified” — the cautious end of the plastics range, not a finding about this particular pack.

    Ingredients, decoded

    Data availability

    Robust·20 of 20 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on all 20 listed ingredients.

    Worth a look (5)

    • QUARTZ9/10abrasiveraters disagree

      NTP known carcinogen · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

    • TITANIUM DIOXIDE8/10uv filter · uv absorber · colorantraters disagree

      ANSES CMR-listed · flagged by 5 of 9 lists

    • PHENOXYETHANOL4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

      Mild sensitizer for some · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    • RED 6 LAKE4/10colorantraters disagree

      EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

    • RED 7 LAKE4/10cosmetic colorantraters disagree

      EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

    ✓No flags in our sources (15)

    • DIMETHICONE
    • ISONONYL ISONONANOATE
    • TRIMETHYLSILOXYSILICATE
    • DIMETHICONE CROSSPOLYMER
    • SYNTHETIC FLUORPHLOGOPITE
    • ETHYLHEXYL ISONONANOATE
    • VINYL DIMETHICONE/METHICONE SILSESQUIOXANE CROSSPOLYMER
    • ISOPROPYL MYRISTATE
    • STEARALKONIUM HECTORITE
    • TIN OXIDE
    • ETHYLHEXYLGLYCERIN
    • PROPYLENE CARBONATE
    • ALUMINA
    • MAY CONTAIN: IRON OXIDES
    • MICA

    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.