A side-by-side read of what the evidence actually records for jojoba oil and castor oil — historical comedogenicity ratings where they exist, industry avoid-list flags where they don't, each cited to source. This compares ingredients, not finished products: use it to frame a label, then verify the real thing in thecomedogenic checker.
Historical rabbit-ear screening result. Raw material, vehicle, concentration, formulation, and human response can differ.
Fulton 1989 (Table I, p. 325)EU CosIng (CosIng common ingredient-name glossary)
Full jojoba oil evidence page →Historical rabbit-ear screening result. Raw material, vehicle, concentration, formulation, and human response can differ.
Fulton 1989 (Table I, p. 325)EU CosIng (CosIng common ingredient-name glossary)
Full castor oil evidence page →The honest answer stays at the level of the evidence — the number, the list, and their limits.
On the historical 0–5 screen, Castor Oil carries the lower peak rating (1 vs 2 for Jojoba Oil). Both sit in the lower half of the scale, and a screening number for a raw material is not a verdict on any product that contains it.
Comedogenicity is an ingredient-level historical signal, not a product grade. The rabbit-ear model that produced these numbers is deliberately sensitive; the 2025 JAAD Reviews summary notes that concentration, purity, vehicle, the complete formulation, and individual response can all change what happens on human skin. Treat a match as a prompt to look closer, never as a finished-product verdict.
Jojoba Oil. If a jojoba-containing product works for you, this range alone is not a reason to discard it. If you suspect a pattern, compare one product change at a time and keep other routine variables stable.
Castor Oil. A low historical score can reduce concern but cannot rule out irritation, allergy, or an individual reaction. Patch testing and gradual routine changes are more informative than the number alone.
For a routine you can trust, dermatology has the last word: the American Academy of Dermatology'sacne skin-care tips pair well with a screened shortlist — one new product at a time, a week of patch-testing, and your own skin settles what no list can.
From the brand's own product page, not a retailer summary.
A top-five flag outweighs the same name near the preservatives.
A week on the jawline is the real test, whatever the score says.
Reviewed summaries for both ingredients, drawn straight from their evidence pages.
Jojoba Oil. Jojoba oil appears as 0-2 in Fulton’s table, with an asterisk noting that results depended on the source of the raw material.
Castor Oil. Castor oil received a 1 in Fulton’s rabbit-ear table, a low reaction in that screen rather than a promise about every castor-oil formula.
Direct answers, held to what the dataset can and cannot say.
On the historical 0–5 screen, Castor Oil carries the lower peak rating (1 vs 2 for Jojoba Oil). Both sit in the lower half of the scale, and a screening number for a raw material is not a verdict on any product that contains it.
Ingredient-level history is only a starting point. If a jojoba-containing product works for you, this range alone is not a reason to discard it. If you suspect a pattern, compare one product change at a time and keep other routine variables stable. A low historical score can reduce concern but cannot rule out irritation, allergy, or an individual reaction. Patch testing and gradual routine changes are more informative than the number alone.
No. Every rating here describes an isolated raw material in a historical rabbit-ear screen, usually at 10% concentration. Concentration, the complete formula, leave-on versus rinse-off, and your own skin all change the outcome — so paste the full label into the checker and patch-test the survivor rather than judging a product by one name.