Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 44-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Cleaner options
See 4 cleaner alternatives
Same category, ranked by ingredient safety, never by affiliate payout.
Lowest 56 · highest 100 · gap 44
Also screened — no listing found
Coverage & match quality
7 ratings · 3 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 69 is a midpoint, not a consensus. The spread stays on the “every rater” list above.
Greenlens Ingredient Scan
Independent · EU regulatory reference
Flagged 4 of 13 ingredients: 2 restricted, 2 of concern.
Starts at 100; 9 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 44 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.
Data availability
Robust13 of 13 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 13 listed ingredients.
| Ingredient | What it does | Safety | Data |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aquasolvent | solvent | No flags in our sources | Well-characterized |
| Hydrogenated Starch Hydrolysatehumectant | humectant | No flags in our sources | CosIng-catalogued |
| Hydrated Silicaabrasiveabsorbentanticaking | abrasiveabsorbentanticaking | No flags in our sources | Well-characterized |
| PEG-32humectantsolvent | humectantsolvent | No flags in our sources | Well-characterized |
| Zinc Citrateantiplaqueoral care | antiplaqueoral care | EU-restricted (with limits)· flagged by 2 of 9raters disagree | Referenced |
| Sodium Lauryl Sulfatecleansingdenaturantfoaming | cleansingdenaturantfoaming | Transparency concern· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagree | Referenced |
| Aromaflavouring | flavouring | Transparency concern· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagree | Referenced |
| Charcoal Powderabrasiveabsorbentopacifying | abrasiveabsorbentopacifying | IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagree | CosIng-catalogued |
| Cellulose Gumfragrancefilm formingbinding | fragrancefilm formingbinding | No flags in our sources | Well-characterized |
| Sodium Fluorideantiplaqueoral care | antiplaqueoral care | EU-restricted (with limits)· flagged by 3 of 9raters disagree | Referenced |
| Sodium Saccharinfragranceflavouringoral care | fragranceflavouringoral care | No flags in our sources | CosIng-catalogued |
| Glycerinperfuminghumectantdenaturant | perfuminghumectantdenaturant | No flags in our sources | Well-characterized |
| CI 77499colorant | colorant | No flags in our sources | CosIng-catalogued |