Comedogenic Checker

Read the label, not the hype

Pore Clogging Ingredients Checker

Paste a skincare or cosmetic ingredient list. See which names appear in a reviewed historical source, where they appear, and what the evidence cannot tell you.

  • No upload or account
  • Exact names, no fuzzy guessing
  • Sources and limits on every match

Browser-only analysis

Check an ingredient list

Stays on this device

Use the label from the package or brand site. Commas, semicolons, line breaks, and bullets work.

Your text is analyzed locally. It is not uploaded, stored, or added to the URL.

161reviewed records
0–5historical source scale
100%browser-side matching

Dataset reviewed

Three short steps

How to check a product

Use the complete INCI list. Partial marketing callouts can hide the context needed to compare names accurately.

  1. 01

    Find the full label

    Use the package or the current ingredient list on the brand’s own product page.

  2. 02

    Paste it as written

    Commas, line breaks, semicolons, and bullets are accepted. Your text stays in the browser.

  3. 03

    Read matches and unknowns

    Open the evidence links and keep unknown entries visible instead of treating them as a low score.

Evidence, not a verdict

What the historical rating means

Fulton’s 1989 table reported follicular keratinisation in a sensitive rabbit-ear screen. The site preserves the reported number while keeping the study model visible.

See the full method
4–5
Stronger historical signal

Reproducibly positive in that screening model.

2–3
Borderline historical signal

The source itself treated this range as borderline.

0–1
Low historical signal

Not significant under those study conditions.

None of these groups certifies a finished product or predicts an individual response.

The label has limits

Why formulation still matters

An ingredient list gives names and approximate order—not exact percentages, delivery, purity, or interactions.

Vehicle

The source paper reported different results when solvents and carriers changed.

Concentration

A label usually does not expose the tested concentration or the finished formula’s exact amount.

Individual response

Skin type, routine, exposure, irritation, and other acne drivers remain outside a text match.

Read ingredient context

Popular evidence pages

Browse all 161 records →
Castor oilHistorical rating 1/5Cocoa butterHistorical rating 4/5Coconut butterHistorical rating 4/5DimethiconeHistorical rating 1/5Ethylhexyl palmitateHistorical rating 4/5Isopropyl myristateHistorical rating 5/5Jojoba oilHistorical rating 0–2/5Lauric acidHistorical rating 4/5Myristic acidHistorical rating 3/5SqualaneHistorical rating 1/5

Clear boundaries

Frequently asked questions

Short answers about what this checker can—and cannot—support.

Does a match mean the product will clog my pores?

No. A match reports an ingredient-level result from a historical screening source. Concentration, vehicle, the full formula, exposure, and individual response can change the practical outcome.

What does “not found” mean?

It means the normalized ingredient name was not present in this reviewed source set. It is not a low rating and should not be interpreted as a product conclusion.

Do you upload or save my ingredient list?

No. The launch version performs parsing and matching in your browser. It does not send the textarea value to a server, analytics service, local storage, or the page URL.

Why use historical ratings if they have limitations?

They are still frequently cited and can help identify questions worth investigating. Showing the source, model, ranges, and limitations is more useful than presenting the numbers as universal product rules.

01

Primary launch source

Fulton, J. E. Jr. (1989)

Comedogenicity and irritancy of commonly used ingredients in skin care products. Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, 40, 321–333.

Open source record ↗