Methodology
Total weight sums to 100%. No criterion is allowed to dominate the score; no criterion is decorative.
| Criterion | Weight | What earns a high score |
|---|---|---|
| Ingredient strength | 25% | Pedigree and concentration of the hero actives. A 0.3% retinol cream scores higher than a 0.01% one. Proprietary complexes with published efficacy data score higher than complexes with brand-only claims. |
| Evidence quality | 20% | Where the claim comes from. Independent peer-reviewed clinical data outranks brand-sponsored clinical data, which outranks consumer self-report studies, which outranks pure marketing copy. |
| Skin type fit | 15% | Whether the product is tested and tolerated across all four skin types (oily, dry, sensitive, combination). Products that only work for one type score lower; broadly compatible products score higher. |
| Value | 15% | Price per ml normalized against ingredient strength. A $25 budget cream with strong actives can outscore a $400 luxury cream with weaker actives. We do not punish luxury pricing when the formula earns it. |
| Texture and usability | 10% | Texture, finish, fragrance, pilling behavior, SPF compatibility, and makeup layering. A cream that wins on chemistry but pills under SPF gets marked down for routine incompatibility. |
| Safety and tolerability | 10% | Irritation risk, fragrance presence, pregnancy and nursing caveats, photo-sensitivity warnings, and known interaction issues. Sensitive-skin and high-tolerability formulas score higher. |
| Brand transparency | 5% | Full INCI disclosure, public access to brand-conducted studies, clear return policies, and honest claim wording. Brands that hide ingredients or overstate evidence get marked down here. |
25% weight
Pedigree and concentration of the hero actives. A 0.3% retinol cream scores higher than a 0.01% one. Proprietary complexes with published efficacy data score higher than complexes with brand-only claims.
Examples: Peptide concentration, retinoid pedigree, growth factor blends, A.G.E.-targeting actives.
20% weight
Where the claim comes from. Independent peer-reviewed clinical data outranks brand-sponsored clinical data, which outranks consumer self-report studies, which outranks pure marketing copy.
Examples: PubMed studies > AAD-cited mechanisms > brand-conducted RCTs > consumer panels > unsourced claims.
15% weight
Whether the product is tested and tolerated across all four skin types (oily, dry, sensitive, combination). Products that only work for one type score lower; broadly compatible products score higher.
Examples: Sensitive-friendly peptide creams, gel-creams that work on oily, rich creams safe on dry.
15% weight
Price per ml normalized against ingredient strength. A $25 budget cream with strong actives can outscore a $400 luxury cream with weaker actives. We do not punish luxury pricing when the formula earns it.
Examples: $/ml relative to active concentration, money-back guarantee, subscription savings.
10% weight
Texture, finish, fragrance, pilling behavior, SPF compatibility, and makeup layering. A cream that wins on chemistry but pills under SPF gets marked down for routine incompatibility.
Examples: Finish (matte / satin / dewy), absorption time, SPF + primer layering, jar vs pump vs airless packaging.
10% weight
Irritation risk, fragrance presence, pregnancy and nursing caveats, photo-sensitivity warnings, and known interaction issues. Sensitive-skin and high-tolerability formulas score higher.
Examples: Fragrance-free formulas, retinol-free for pregnancy, low-pH photoprotective pairings.
5% weight
Full INCI disclosure, public access to brand-conducted studies, clear return policies, and honest claim wording. Brands that hide ingredients or overstate evidence get marked down here.
Examples: Public INCI on brand site, study summaries available, clear money-back terms, no clinically-proven claims without data.
The rubric is the output side of how BLC evaluates a product. The protocol, ingredient analysis, update policy, and source library are the inputs.