hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 35-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 966 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 →
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: EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 56% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
6 ratings · 1 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.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Robust24 of 27 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 24 of 27 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
Prop 65-listedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged by 1 of 9 lists
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (21)
No data in our sources (3)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.