Gel Couture Tailored By Twilight Nail Colour

nail polishes135mlGTIN 0095008045269

Every rater, every axis

Labor

Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Essie as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →

Packaging

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

Coverage & match quality

2 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

Ingredient safetyno rating

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

Environmentalno rating

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

Labor1.0×

Packaging1.0×

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

What we know about the packaging

Partly identified1 of 2 identified

1 of 2 packaging components is a named material; Plastic (unspecified) is recorded only in general terms, so that part of the score is a stand-in.

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.

Ingredients, decoded

Where this came from

Cruelty-free status recorded from peta.org ↗

Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.

Essie

Gel Couture Tailored By Twilight Nail Colour

nail polishes135mlGTIN 0095008045269

Every rater, every axis

Labor

Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Essie as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →

Packaging

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

Coverage & match quality

2 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

Ingredient safetyno rating

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

Environmentalno rating

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

Labor1.0×

Packaging1.0×

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

What we know about the packaging

Partly identified1 of 2 identified

1 of 2 packaging components is a named material; Plastic (unspecified) is recorded only in general terms, so that part of the score is a stand-in.

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.

Ingredients, decoded

Where this came from

Cruelty-free status recorded from peta.org ↗

Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.