Pore-Clogging Ingredient Checker
Paste a cosmetic ingredient list to find ingredients with cited comedogenicity evidence — and see where the evidence is uncertain.
Paste the full declaration, including any “may contain” section. 0 of 20,000 characters used. Your ingredient list is analysed in this browser and is not uploaded.
Results will appear here once you paste or scan an ingredient list.
This pore-clogging ingredients checker—also described as a pore-clogging ingredient checker or comedogenic checker—compares label text with cited evidence. It does not diagnose acne or predict how a finished product will behave on your skin.
Looking up one ingredient?
Individual pages cover what the sources report for a single ingredient, where the rating in circulation for it came from, and which names it gets confused with.
All ingredient pages · Why this site does not use comedogenic ratings
How interpretation works
What this checker does
It normalises each name on your label and compares it against a version-controlled evidence database. Where a name matches a record, it shows you what the cited source actually reports, how strong that evidence is, and what the finding does not cover.
What it cannot determine
It cannot predict whether you will break out, and it cannot assess a finished product. A human study of finished cosmetics formulated with ingredients previously identified as comedogenic found that those products were not necessarily comedogenic. An ingredient match is a starting point for reading, not a verdict on the thing in your hand.
Why formulation matters
The same ingredient behaves differently at different concentrations, in different vehicles, and in products that are rinsed off rather than left on. Exposure time, the rest of the formula and individual skin response all affect the outcome, and none of them are visible in an ingredient name.
Why evidence levels differ
Much of the historical evidence comes from a rabbit ear assay. That model is useful for screening, but the human-assay literature reports that it overreacts to comedogenic materials. Other sources test human skin, and others test finished products. These are not interchangeable, so this tool labels the tier on every record rather than flattening them into one rating.
How labels are parsed
Ingredients are split on commas, semicolons, line breaks and bullets, but never inside brackets and never on a slash, because names such as Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride contain one. Section headings for active, inactive and “may contain” ingredients are recognised and shown against each result. Where a name is reached through a recorded alias, the match is disclosed rather than presented as if you had typed the canonical name. Names that resolve to more than one record, such as a colour index number shared by a dye and its lake, are reported as ambiguous instead of being guessed.
Position on a label is displayed but never read as a concentration. Labelling rules generally require descending order of predominance, with exceptions including ingredients present at one percent or less and colour additives.
Where a name is not recognised
An unrecognised ingredient is reported as exactly that. It is never described as safe, and it is never quietly matched to something with a similar spelling. There is no fuzzy matching anywhere in this tool.
How the evidence is maintained
Reviewed by: pore-checker prototype dataset compilation (not clinically reviewed). This dataset has not been reviewed by a clinician, and nothing on this page is medical advice.
Inclusion rules
- A record may only claim a comedogenicity concern, or an absence of concern, if a source in sources.json is cited for that claim.
- Claims are limited to what the cited source itself reports. Where only an abstract could be verified, the record states the family-level or study-level claim rather than inventing a per-ingredient rating.
- Ingredient identity citations (CosIng) establish that a name is a recognised cosmetic ingredient. They are never treated as evidence about comedogenicity.
- Ingredients that circulate on popular comedogenic lists but have no verified assessment in the included corpus are recorded as not_established rather than being classified in either direction.
- No record is copied from another checker's proprietary ingredient list.
What the records currently contain
12 records report a concern, 4 record conflicting or contested evidence, 44 record no concern found in the included sources, and 9 record that the evidence is not established. That last group matters: it includes ingredients that appear on many popular pore-clogging lists but for which this project could not verify a citable assessment. Those are shown as unresolved rather than repeated as fact.
Corrections
Every record carries a stable identifier, a review date and its sources, so a disputed entry can be pointed at precisely. Corrections are made by changing the dataset and its version, not by adjusting wording in the interface.
Sources
These are the sources every classification on this page is drawn from. Each entry records what it does and does not support.
Comedogenicity of current therapeutic products, cosmetics, and ingredients in the rabbit ear
Fulton JE Jr, Pay SR, Fulton JE 3rd. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1984. Peer-reviewed. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(84)80050-x
Rabbit ear assay. This is the historical origin of most ingredient-level comedogenicity lists in circulation today. The assay is a screening model in animal skin, not a measurement of how a finished cosmetic behaves on a human face. Later work (see src-baek-2016) reports that this model overreacts relative to human testing.
A human model for assessing comedogenic substances
Mills OH Jr, Kligman AM. Archives of Dermatology, 1982. Peer-reviewed.
Describes a human upper-back assay for comedogenic potential. Reports that substances rated moderately to strongly comedogenic in the rabbit ear model were capable of inducing comedones in the human model, which is a correlation at the strong end of the scale rather than a general equivalence between the two models.
Kligman AM, Mills OH Jr. Archives of Dermatology, 1972. Peer-reviewed.
The paper that introduced the concept of acne cosmetica and linked the use of certain cosmetic ingredients to comedo formation. Included as historical context for why ingredient-level comedogenicity lists exist at all.
A re-evaluation of the comedogenicity concept
Draelos ZD, DiNardo JC. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2006. Peer-reviewed. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2005.11.1058
Applied a modification of the Mills and Kligman human assay to finished cosmetic products formulated with ingredients previously identified as comedogenic. Reported that finished products using comedogenic ingredients are not necessarily comedogenic. This is the single most important source in this dataset: it is the direct evidence that an ingredient-level match cannot be converted into a finished-product conclusion.
DiNardo JC. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2005. Peer-reviewed. doi:10.1111/j.1473-2165.2005.00150.x
A short commentary in the cosmetic dermatology literature that explicitly re-opens the question of whether mineral oil deserves its comedogenic classification. PubMed lists no abstract for this item, so this dataset cites it only as evidence that the classification is contested in the literature, and does not attribute a specific conclusion to it.
Analysis of comedone, sebum and porphyrin on the face and body for comedogenicity assay
Baek JH, Ahn SM, Choi KM, Jung MK, Shin MK, Koh JS. Skin Research and Technology, 2016. Peer-reviewed. doi:10.1111/srt.12244
Human comedogenicity assay methodology study in 66 volunteers. States that the rabbit ear model can replace human testing for screening purposes but that a number of studies have pointed out its disadvantage of overreacting to comedogenic materials. This is the citation behind every 'animal-model evidence may overstate the result' limitation in this dataset.
Acne: Why won't my acne clear?
American Academy of Dermatology Association, 2026. Professional body.
Consumer guidance from a dermatology professional body. Advises choosing products labelled non-comedogenic while also noting such products can still cause acne in some people. Cited for interpretation guidance, not for ingredient-level classification.
Summary of Cosmetics Labeling Requirements
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2026. Regulator.
Cited for how ingredient declarations are ordered. Ingredients are generally listed in descending order of predominance, with exceptions including ingredients present at one percent or less and colour additives, which is why label position cannot be read as a concentration.
Cosmetic ingredient database (CosIng)
European Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, 2026. Regulator.
Used only to establish that an INCI name refers to a recognised cosmetic ingredient. Presence in CosIng does not mean an ingredient is approved, safe, or non-comedogenic, and this dataset never treats an identity citation as evidence about comedogenicity.
Questions people ask
What does comedogenic mean?
A comedo is a blocked follicle: a blackhead or whitehead. An ingredient or product described as comedogenic is one reported to encourage comedones to form. The term comes out of research from the 1970s and 1980s that linked certain cosmetic ingredients to comedo formation.
Can an ingredient checker predict whether I will break out?
No. A checker compares names against a list. It has no access to the concentration of anything, to the rest of the formula, to how you use the product, or to how your skin behaves. Those are the factors that decide the outcome.
Does “non-comedogenic” guarantee a product will not cause acne?
No. The American Academy of Dermatology advises choosing products labelled non-comedogenic, while also noting that such products can still cause acne in some people. The label is not a guarantee, and the term is not tightly regulated.
Why does formulation matter?
Because a finished product is not the sum of its ingredient names. Human testing of cosmetics formulated with ingredients previously identified as comedogenic found that those finished products were not necessarily comedogenic. Concentration, the vehicle carrying the ingredient, and whether the product is rinsed off all change the result.
Why was an ingredient not recognised?
Most often because the name is an alias this dataset does not yet include, or a spelling or botanical variant, or part of an undisclosed blend such as a fragrance declaration. It may also simply be absent from the reviewed evidence set. An unrecognised name means this tool has nothing citable to show you — not that the ingredient is fine.
Is a high position in the list proof of a high concentration?
No. Ingredient declarations are generally ordered by descending predominance, but there are exceptions: ingredients present at one percent or less may be listed in any order after the ones above that threshold, and colour additives may be listed at the end. Order is a rough hint, not a measurement.
Are ingredient lists uploaded?
No. Your text is analysed in this browser against a dataset bundled with the page. There is no server to send it to, nothing is written to browser storage, and nothing is placed in the address bar. Photos and recognised text are processed on your device in the same way. Reloading the page clears everything.
Should I stop using a product because it contains a flagged ingredient?
That is not a decision this tool can make for you, and a flag here is not a reason on its own. Several entries in this dataset are ingredients used to treat acne, which is a good illustration of why an ingredient-level flag does not translate into advice about a product.
When should I see a dermatologist?
Consider seeking care from a qualified healthcare professional if acne is persistent, painful, scarring, or getting worse, or if it is affecting how you feel day to day. A clinician can assess your skin, which no ingredient list can.