Scoring Model V4.9.2 · Updated October 30, 2025
How we evaluate every product for every condition
Most skincare databases score a product once and call it done. We score each product separately for every skin condition it’s relevant to — because a cleanser that earns a 95 for dry skin might deserve a 62 for acne-prone skin, and that difference is the whole point. This page explains exactly how we get to those numbers.
Why condition-specific scoring matters
Skincare is not one-size-fits-all. The same ingredient can be a hero for one condition and a problem for another. Consider these real examples:
Salicylic acid (BHA)
Exceptional for acne-prone skin — penetrates pores, dissolves sebum plugs, reduces breakouts. But for eczema-prone skin, it can further compromise an already damaged barrier and trigger flares. Same ingredient, opposite outcomes depending on your condition.
Glycolic acid (AHA)
Excellent for dull/uneven texture — accelerates cell turnover, reveals brighter skin underneath. For rosacea, that same exfoliation can cause flushing, stinging, and aggravation of broken capillaries. The chemical mechanism doesn’t change — but the skin’s response does.
Rich occlusives (petrolatum, mineral oil)
Gold standard for dry/dehydrated and eczema-prone skin — they seal in moisture and protect a compromised barrier. For oily and acne-prone skin, they can trap sebum and create a breeding ground for breakouts.
A single score cannot capture these distinctions. That’s why every evaluation in our database is built from the ground up for a specific product + condition pair.
The 10 skin conditions we evaluate
These conditions were selected because they represent the most common reasons people seek skincare products — and because each has meaningfully distinct requirements from a formulation standpoint.
Dry / Dehydrated
Skin that lacks oil production (dry) or water content (dehydrated), or both. Evaluations prioritize barrier repair ingredients like ceramides, humectants like hyaluronic acid, and the absence of stripping surfactants. Products are penalized for harsh cleansing agents or high alcohol content that would further deplete an already compromised moisture barrier.
Oily
Excess sebum production leading to shine, enlarged pores, and congestion. Evaluations reward ingredients that regulate sebum (niacinamide, zinc, salicylic acid), lightweight textures that don’t add occlusion, and oil-free formulations. Heavy creams and comedogenic oils are scored lower regardless of their performance for other conditions.
Combination
The most nuanced condition to evaluate — oily T-zone with dry or normal cheeks. Products need to balance hydration without overwhelming oily areas, and control sebum without stripping dry zones. Gel-cream textures and ingredients like niacinamide that modulate rather than suppress oil production score highest.
Acne-Prone
Skin prone to comedones, papules, pustules, or cystic breakouts. Evaluations examine comedogenicity of every ingredient in the INCI list, prioritize non-comedogenic certifications, and reward actives with evidence for acne reduction (salicylic acid, benzoyl peroxide, retinoids, niacinamide). Fragrance and known pore-clogging ingredients trigger score reductions.
Sensitive
Skin that reacts easily with stinging, burning, redness, or irritation. The strictest evaluation criteria — fragrance, essential oils, drying alcohols, and high-concentration actives all reduce scores significantly. Short ingredient lists and barrier-supporting formulations are rewarded.
Aging / Mature
Skin showing signs of chronological or photoaging — fine lines, wrinkles, loss of elasticity, thinning. Evaluations prioritize ingredients with strong anti-aging evidence: retinoids, peptides, vitamin C, niacinamide, and alpha hydroxy acids. Clinical evidence weighting is higher for this condition because the gap between evidence-backed actives and marketing-driven ones is wide.
Hyperpigmentation
Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, melasma, sun spots, and uneven skin tone. Evaluations look for tyrosinase inhibitors (vitamin C, arbutin, kojic acid, licorice root), cell turnover accelerators (retinoids, AHAs), and broad-spectrum sun protection. Products are evaluated on their mechanism against melanin overproduction, not just general brightening claims.
Rosacea
Persistent redness, visible blood vessels, bumps, and skin sensitivity on the central face. One of the most restrictive criteria — many ingredients that perform well elsewhere are actively harmful here. Alcohol, fragrance, menthol, witch hazel, and aggressive exfoliants trigger significant score reductions. Azelaic acid, niacinamide, and centella asiatica are among the few actives with favorable evidence for rosacea.
Dull / Uneven Texture
Rough texture, dullness, lack of radiance, and visible pore texture. Evaluations prioritize chemical exfoliants (AHAs, BHAs, PHAs), antioxidants that improve luminosity (vitamin C, niacinamide), and cell turnover ingredients.
Eczema-Prone
Skin with a compromised barrier prone to flares of itching, dryness, cracking, and inflammation. The most medically-oriented evaluation — we cross-reference against dermatological guidelines for atopic dermatitis. National Eczema Association acceptance, colloidal oatmeal, ceramide content, and minimal ingredient counts are heavily weighted.
How we decide which conditions to evaluate
Not every product needs all 10 evaluations. Our classification system determines scope based on primary function.
Universal products — all 10 conditions
Cleansers, moisturizers, and sunscreens are used by everyone regardless of skin concern. Because these products are foundational, they receive the full 10-condition evaluation. Our database currently contains 447 universal products, each with up to 10 individual evaluations.
Targeted products — 4 to 6 conditions
Serums, treatments, exfoliants, and specialty products are designed for specific concerns. We evaluate targeted products against the 4–6 conditions where the product’s actives are genuinely relevant, including conditions where the product might cause problems. Our database currently contains 831 targeted products.
Condition selection examples
A retinol serum gets evaluated for: Aging/Mature (primary target), Acne-Prone (retinoids treat acne), Hyperpigmentation (cell turnover brightens), Sensitive (irritation risk), and Dry/Dehydrated (retinol can cause dryness). It does not get evaluated for Oily or Combination because retinol’s mechanism isn’t about sebum regulation.
A BHA exfoliant gets evaluated for: Acne-Prone (primary target), Oily (sebum control), Combination (T-zone management), and Dull/Uneven Texture (exfoliation). It doesn’t get evaluated for Eczema-Prone because BHA on compromised eczema skin would be irresponsible to recommend.
A niacinamide serum gets evaluated for 6 conditions: Oily (sebum regulation), Acne-Prone (anti-inflammatory), Hyperpigmentation (melanin inhibition), Rosacea (redness reduction), Sensitive (barrier support), and Aging/Mature (collagen stimulation) — because niacinamide has evidence-backed mechanisms across all of these.
The evaluation process, step by step
Every one of our 9,642 evaluations follows this same process. There are no abbreviated versions, no templated shortcuts, and no copy-pasted content between conditions.
Complete INCI ingredient analysis
Every evaluation begins with the full INCI (International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients) list — the legally required, ordered list of every ingredient in the product. Ingredients are listed in descending order of concentration, so position tells us roughly how much of each ingredient is present.
For each evaluation, we analyze the INCI list through the lens of the specific condition being scored:
Active identification and concentration. We identify every active ingredient, its known concentration (when disclosed), and its mechanism of action for the target condition. Niacinamide at 2% functions primarily as barrier support; at 10%, it becomes a meaningful sebum regulator and melanin inhibitor. These concentration thresholds matter and are tracked in our key actives record for every product.
Ingredient-condition interaction mapping. Each ingredient is evaluated for its specific interaction with the condition being scored. Cetearyl alcohol is a fatty alcohol that’s beneficial for dry skin (emollient, barrier-reinforcing) but can contribute to congestion in acne-prone skin. Denatured alcohol helps absorption and creates a matte finish for oily skin but strips lipids from an eczema-compromised barrier. This ingredient-by-ingredient mapping is what makes each evaluation genuinely distinct.
Allergen and irritant flagging. We maintain an ingredient flags system that tracks common concern ingredients (fragrance, essential oils, drying alcohols, sulfates, silicones), notable absences (paraben-free, sulfate-free), and high-concentration actives. These flags are weighted differently per condition — fragrance is a minor note for oily skin but a serious red flag for rosacea and eczema.
Formulation architecture. Beyond individual ingredients, we assess how the formula works as a system. Surfactant strength in cleansers, emulsion type in moisturizers (oil-in-water vs water-in-oil), delivery system for actives (encapsulated retinol vs free retinol), pH level implications for exfoliants — these formulation-level considerations affect performance differently across conditions.
Clinical evidence review
We assess the scientific backing behind every product’s key actives — specifically for the condition being evaluated. An ingredient can have strong evidence for one condition and weak or no evidence for another.
Ingredient-level evidence. We review peer-reviewed dermatological research for each key active. Retinoids have decades of controlled trials for anti-aging (strong evidence) and acne (strong evidence), but more limited data for hyperpigmentation (moderate evidence). Ceramides have strong evidence for barrier repair in eczema and dry skin, but their anti-aging role is less established.
Product-level evidence. Some products have been clinically tested as complete formulations, not just their individual ingredients. When product-level evidence exists, it carries additional weight because it accounts for how ingredients interact within the formula.
Third-party validations. We track certifications that indicate independent verification: National Eczema Association acceptance, non-comedogenic testing, dermatologist development or endorsement, and fragrance-free certifications.
Evidence rating. Every product receives an overall clinical evidence rating of Strong, Moderate, or Limited. Currently, 284 products have strong clinical evidence, 809 have moderate evidence, and 906 carry dermatologist recommendations.
User review collection and condition-specific synthesis
This is the most labor-intensive step and the one that separates our evaluations from everything else available online. We don’t just aggregate star ratings — we read, filter, and synthesize reviews from real users who specifically mention the condition being evaluated.
Multi-source collection. For each product, we gather reviews from multiple platforms: Amazon (largest volume), Ulta, Dermstore, Sephora, and Reddit skincare communities (r/SkincareAddiction, r/Eczema, r/Rosacea, r/DrySkinCare, among others). Reddit is particularly valuable because users describe their conditions, routines, and long-term results in detail that retail site reviews rarely match.
Condition-specific filtering. For each product-condition evaluation, we filter for reviews that explicitly mention the target condition. When evaluating a cleanser for eczema-prone skin, we search for reviews mentioning eczema, atopic dermatitis, flare-ups, barrier damage, and related terms. When evaluating the same cleanser for acne-prone skin, we filter for breakouts, acne, pimples, clogged pores, and comedones. The same product, entirely different review sets.
Synthesis, not summarization. We synthesize patterns across condition-filtered reviews: What do users with this condition consistently praise? What do they warn about? Are there unexpected outcomes? Do long-term users report different results than first-time reviewers? This synthesis becomes the user feedback section of each evaluation.
Transparent metrics. Every evaluation documents the number of reviews analyzed, the search terms used for condition filtering, the average rating among condition-relevant reviews, the percentage of positive outcomes, the sources consulted, and the date of data collection.
Condition-specific scoring (0–100)
The ingredient analysis, clinical evidence, and user feedback converge into a single score between 0 and 100 for that specific product + condition combination. This is not a weighted formula with fixed percentages — the relative importance of each input shifts based on the condition and product type.
How weighting shifts by condition. For eczema-prone evaluations, clinical evidence and third-party certifications carry extra weight because eczema management has strong medical guidelines. For acne-prone evaluations, comedogenicity analysis of the full INCI list is weighted most heavily. For aging/mature evaluations, clinical evidence strength behind the key actives matters most.
How weighting shifts by product type. Cleanser evaluations weight gentleness and what the product doesn’t do (strip, irritate, leave residue) as heavily as what it does. Serum and treatment evaluations weight active ingredient efficacy and concentration most heavily. Moisturizer evaluations balance hydration delivery, barrier support, and texture/wearability.
Evaluation content generation
The score is only the beginning. Every evaluation includes a full content package built from scratch:
Quality control and cross-validation
Before an evaluation enters the database, it passes through a quality control checklist:
Consistency check. Does the score align with the analysis? If the expert analysis describes significant limitations, the score shouldn’t be in the “Excellent” tier. Score and narrative must tell the same story.
Condition specificity check. Every sentence must be relevant to the target condition. Generic product descriptions are rejected. “This moisturizer hydrates well” fails; “This moisturizer’s ceramide-heavy formula repairs the lipid barrier deficiency driving eczema flares” passes.
Cross-condition sanity check. When a product has been evaluated across multiple conditions, we verify the scores make sense relative to each other. A fragrance-heavy product should not score higher for sensitive skin than for oily skin.
Completeness check. All required fields present, word counts within range, review metrics documented, no placeholder content, no recycled text between conditions.
How to read our scores
Every score is a 0–100 rating for a specific product + condition pair. The same product can and often does score very differently across conditions — that is a feature, not a flaw.
Important
100 is achievable. We do not cap scores artificially. If a product genuinely excels across every criterion for a specific condition, it deserves a perfect score.
Product categories
We classify products into 12 categories based on primary function. Category determines evaluation scope and influences score weighting.
Universal (all 10 conditions)
Targeted (4–6 conditions)
Ingredient flag system
Beyond scoring, every product carries an ingredient flags record for at-a-glance awareness of common concerns and notable actives.
What we track
Contains — Ingredients commonly flagged as concerns: fragrance/parfum, essential oils (specified by type), drying alcohols, sulfates, silicones, mineral oil, coconut derivatives, and physical exfoliant particles.
Free from — Notable absences verified against the INCI list and certifications: paraben-free, sulfate-free, fragrance-free, and others. We only list claims we can verify.
Notable actives — High-concentration or clinically significant actives with concentrations when disclosed. “Niacinamide 10%”, “Retinol 0.5%”, “Vitamin C 15%”.
Model versioning and updates
Our scoring model is versioned and documented. The current version is V4.9.2, released October 30, 2025.
What changed in V4.9.2
When the scoring model is updated, all existing evaluations are reviewed for compatibility. Scores are not retroactively changed unless the update specifically addresses a methodology issue.
Editorial independence and integrity
Limitations and what we don’t do
Transparency includes being honest about what our methodology cannot capture.
We don’t test products on skin. Our evaluations are based on ingredient analysis, published clinical evidence, and user-reported outcomes — not proprietary lab testing.
Individual results vary. A score of 95 means the formulation, evidence, and user outcomes all point strongly positive. It does not guarantee the product will work for you personally.
Review data has biases. People who love or hate a product are more likely to leave reviews than those who find it adequate. We account for biases but cannot eliminate them.
This is not medical advice. If you have a diagnosed skin condition, work with a dermatologist. Our scores can inform conversations with your doctor but are not a substitute for professional guidance.
See the methodology in action
The best way to understand our evaluations is to read one. Pick the condition that matters most to you.