hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 757 cleaner alternatives
Same category, all safer. We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
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 →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · California Proposition 65 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)
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
Robust13 of 14 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 13 of 14 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (4)
Endocrine-activeflagged by 3 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
Persistent / bioaccumulativeflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (9)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
Where this came from
Cruelty-free status recorded from unilever.com ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.