hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 40-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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: ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 62% 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 →
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
Robust25 of 26 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 25 of 26 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (4)
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged 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 (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.