Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 70-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 12 cleaner alternatives
Same category, ranked by ingredient safety, never by affiliate payout.
Lowest 30 · highest 100 · gap 70
Also screened — no listing found
Coverage & match quality
6 ratings · 2 of 4 axes
no black box
We don't rate products ourselves. We collect what each public rater already says, put every scale on common ground, and keep the disagreements visible instead of averaging them away.
Collect each rater's own score
Every source keeps its native verdict for this product. We never invent a score for an axis a source didn't measure.
Normalize to 0–100, higher = better
Raters can use different scales and directions: some where a low number means safe, some where a high one does. We map them all onto one 0–100 axis and flip the ones that run backwards so the numbers are finally comparable.
Average per axis, but keep the spread
Scores on the same axis become one representative number (their mean). When raters split by 20+ points we flag it and keep every rater's number. A disagreement is never blended into silence.
Your weights make the overall
The ring is the weighted average of the four pillars using your weights. It's computed fresh every time and never stored, so there's no hidden “objective” default.
worked example · Ingredient safety
Raters split here, so this 52 is a midpoint, not a consensus. The spread stays on the “every rater” list above.
Greenlens Ingredient Scan
Independent · EU regulatory reference
Flagged 2 of 9 ingredients: 1 of concern.
Starts at 100; 8 other ingredients carried no recognized regulated hazard. Absence of a flag means no regulated hazard was recognized — not proof of safety. This is one lens; see where raters disagree above.
Why this score
Every ingredient, under all three lenses
The Scan is one opinion. The strict and lenient lenses read the same list and land 32 points apart. See what each one flags, and what it costs.
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
Robust9 of 9 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 9 listed ingredients.
| Ingredient | What it does | Safety | Data |
|---|---|---|---|
| cyclopentasiloxaneemollienthair conditioningskin conditioning | emollienthair conditioningskin conditioning | Persistent / bioaccumulative· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagree | Referenced |
| stearyl alcoholfragranceemollientemulsion stabilising | fragranceemollientemulsion stabilising | No flags in our sources | Well-characterized |
| mineral oil | No flags in our sources | Well-characterized | |
| dimethiconeemollientantifoamingskin conditioning | emollientantifoamingskin conditioning | No flags in our sources | Well-characterized |
| petrolatumemollientantistatic | emollientantistatic | Examined, no flag | Referenced |
| hydrogenated castor oilemollientsurfactant - cleansingsurfactant - emulsifying | emollientsurfactant - cleansingsurfactant - emulsifying | No flags in our sources | Well-characterized |
| kaolincolorantabrasiveabsorbent | colorantabrasiveabsorbent | No flags in our sources | Well-characterized |
| ppg-14 butyl etherhair conditioningskin conditioning | hair conditioningskin conditioning | No flags in our sources | CosIng-catalogued |
| fragrance | Transparency concern· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagree | Referenced |
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against ebay.com ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.