hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 75-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 2428 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 →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · IARC Monographs · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors
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
Good11 of 13 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 11 of 13 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
EU-prohibitedflagged by 4 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
Persistent / bioaccumulativeflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (8)
No data in our sources (2)
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.