hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 20-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 19 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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 56% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
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
7 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
Robust9 of 9 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 9 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (4)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (5)
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.