Our website uses cookies to provide your browsing experience and relavent informations.Before continuing to use our website, you agree & accept of our Cookie Policy & Privacy
Enter OTP sent to & Edit
by signing up, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
or
Instant access your account
tell a friend
shop by category
Trending Brands
find brands
shop by concern
3000+ brands scored
Today's Popular Searches
Find Popular Brands by Categories
100% clean, green cruelty free
Trending Searches
Brand needs to have complete label transparency. Very little information is provided on environment and recycling policies.
Poor
1.8
Very poor
Clean formula
2.7
Average
Green policy
3.8
Good
cruelty free
3.0
Fair
honest label
synthetic free
naturally derived
organic certified
We are not clear if ingredients used in some products are toxic to humans. We have asked brand for further clarity. Please tap the icons for more details under each criteria to understand more.
Hazard index: according to global standards.
Please tap the ingredients to know more
potential human toxins.
moderate human toxins.
low or no human toxins
Though brand claims to be using natural derived ingredients, they mention key ingredients on some of their product labels / website.Some Ingredients are labelled as "Base" with no clarification of ingredients. Some products contain Fragrance~, Color~~can be natural/ synthetic derived
Though brand claims to be using natural derived ingredients, they mentions key ingredients on some of their product labels / website.Some Ingredients are labelled as "Base" with no clarification of ingredients. Some products contain Fragrance~, Color~, Shea Butter*~can be natural/ synthetic derived*we have asked for clarity on fair trade source
earth safe
recycle material
Ingredients used in products are eco pollutants.Brand's recycling policies are poor and not green. Please tap the icons for more details under each criteriato understand why.
Brand does not give full label transparency on their product labels/ website.In the absence of complete ingredient transparency, it is very difficult to ascertain this.
Brand uses glass & plastic for products packagingWe have asked them for more information on their recycling policies and plastic content.
100% vegan
Brand is committed to being cruelty free. And has confirmed to zoobop that they do not sell their products where animal testing is mandatory as per law.
Brand claims to be committed to being cruelty free.With no animal testing at any stage of production or marketing.However they are using the PETA logo on their website without being accredited by them.zoobop suggests the brand use a generic and not trademarked logo to ascertain their cruelty free status.
Some products contain Honey, Milk, Glycerin~Brand has vegan options**~can be plant/ animal derived**users are advised to always check product labels for full ingredient content.
honesty
Though brand is transparent with labelling, they need to clearly indicate transparency in sourcing of ingredients like Shea.
We are not clear if ingredients used in some products are toxic to humans.We have asked brand for further clarity. Please tap the icons for more details under each criteria to understand more.
Luxuriate is not organic certified.
With any other brand
You can submit multiple choices
This brand is clean and safe. We have asked them for more information on their plastic PCR content.
We hope some of the ingredients are replaced for greener alternatives. We have asked brand for transparency in supply chain for shea.
We have asked for transparency in the supply chain of mica used and clarity on some ingredients.
This brand is clean and safe.
This brand is clean and safe. We have asked them for more information on their recycling policies and PCR content.
We have asked brand for transparency in supply chain for palm oil & mica.
This brand is not cruelty free. Many Ingredients used are questionable. zoobop suggests using clean, green, cruelty free alternatives which are good for you and the planet.
Though brand is cruelty free, many ingredients used are questionable.