hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 80-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 2526 cleaner alternatives
Same category, all safer. We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
9 are in this product's price band or under
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 →
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 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 50% 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
Robust28 of 28 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 28 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (2)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 5 of 9 lists
EU-prohibitedflagged by 2 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (26)
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.