Greenlens

Every public rating on one cosmetic, the places they disagree kept visible, and a single score whose weighting you control.

Navigate

  • Browse
  • In your home
  • Ask Sonion
  • Methodology
  • Criteria
  • Extension
  • How scoring works
  • Account

The one rule

We never blend a score that hides who disagrees. Funding model travels with every rating. Weights are computed at read time and never stored.

Cosmetics only · lead with safetyOpen data via Open Beauty Facts · no EWG/Yuka scraping
As an Amazon Associate, Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Affiliate income never changes a rating or ranking.PrivacyTerms
Catalog/Prédiré Paris/Intensive Rapid Renewal Eye Care Anti Aging Night Serum
Intensive Rapid Renewal Eye Care Anti Aging Night Serum
Prédiré Paris

Intensive Rapid Renewal Eye Care Anti Aging Night Serum

Anti-Aging

Prédiré Paris

Intensive Rapid Renewal Eye Care Anti Aging Night Serum

Anti-Aging

hover a pillar to set the scene →

Your composite

70OUT OF 100Fair

range 65–81

—
Eco
—
Labor

Why this score

8-point split

90

Scan

98

Precautionary

94

Tolerance

See why →
Find on Amazon↗

Affiliate link. We may earn a commission. It never changes a rating.

In your home

Sort this into a room

Cleaner options

211 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 33-point gap between the two loudest voices.

65California Proposition 65Government
vs
98Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

Cleaner options

See 211 cleaner alternatives

Same category, all safer. We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

See better →

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

33 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • 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 →

✓Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Packaging

    • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

    Coverage & match quality

    8 ratings · 2 of 4 axes

    • Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
    • Fewer raters reach smaller-brand products, so a missing rating is not a clean bill of health, only a gap.

    Weighted by what you care about

    Tune your weights

    composite recomputes live

    +
    1.0×
    Environmentalno rating

    No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

    Laborno rating

    No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

    1.0×
    0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

    What we know about the packaging

    Unidentified·0 of 2 identified

    None of the 2 packaging components is identified beyond its broad material, so the packaging score is a stand-in — not a reading of this container.

    • Recorded only as “plastic” — no resin code. It could be PET (#1) (widely recyclable) or PVC (#3) (hard to recycle); nothing on record says which, so it counts as 46 out of 100, the middle of that range.

    This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.

    How we know the packaging

    Nobody published the material for this product, so it was read from the product photo — the container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. Treat the packaging score as weaker here than on a product with a declared material.

    A photo also cannot show the resin code moulded into the base, so every plastic container reads as “plastic, unspecified” — the cautious end of the plastics range, not a finding about this particular pack.

    Ingredients, decoded

    Data availability

    Robust·33 of 33 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on all 33 listed ingredients.

    Worth a look (4)

    • Retinol8/10skin conditioningraters disagree

      Prop 65-listed · flagged by 4 of 9 lists

    • Ascorbic Acid6/10fragrance · antioxidant · bufferingraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    • Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Extract4/10humectant · emollient · oral careraters disagree

      IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B) · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    • Phenoxyethanol4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

      Mild sensitizer for some · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    ✓No flags in our sources (29)

    • Water
    • Argania Spinosa Kernel Oil
    • Propylene Glycol
    • Butylene Glycol
    • Caprylic/capric Triglyceride
    • Hamamelis Virginiana Extract
    • Cetearyl Alcohol
    • Trehalose
    • Betaine
    • Cetyl Peg/ppg-10/1 Dimethicone
    • Tocopherol
    • Avena Sativa Peptide
    • Dextran
    • Collagen
    • Panthenol
    • Hydroxyethylcellulose
    • Allantoin
    • Sodium Pca
    • Triticum Vulgare Germ Extract
    • Sodium Hyaluronate
    • Tripeptide-1
    • Potassium Methoxysalicylate
    • Helichrysum Angustifolium Flower Extract
    • Punica Granatum Pericarp Extract
    • Lysine
    • Tropaeolum Majus Flower/leaf/stem Extract
    • Malus Domestica Fruit Cell Culture Extract
    • Avena Sativa Bran Extract
    • Magnesium Sulfate