Facial moisturiser - sensitive skin - fragrance-free
Aveeno's answer to the reactive-skin shelf: a fragrance-free gel-cream built on colloidal oat and feverfew, sold in a 48 g jar for under twenty dollars, and rated 4.5 by nearly nine and a half thousand buyers. The interesting question is not whether it soothes - it is how much of the soothing comes from the ingredients the brand names, and how much from a silicone base that simply stops water leaving.
Product information
Specifications as published on the listing, read against a US delivery address so every figure is native USD with no conversion applied.
Live value at capture; it moves daily and is a snapshot, not a stable position.
What this product is
A 1.7 oz (48 g) jar of oil-free gel-cream for sensitive and irritation-prone skin. The label leads with two actives: prebiotic oat, which is the colloidal oatmeal pair Avena Sativa Kernel Flour and Avena Sativa Kernel Extract, and feverfew, carried here as Chrysanthemum Parthenium Flower/Leaf/Stem Juice. The base is a dimethicone and dimethicone-crosspolymer gel softened with C13-14 isoparaffin, with glycerin and butylene glycol holding water and panthenol sitting high enough in the list to matter. Preserved with phenoxyethanol, chlorphenesin and ethylhexylglycerin. There is no fragrance, no alcohol, no oil and no sulfate - and, despite the gel texture, three silicones.
How it is meant to be used
A pea-sized amount over the face and neck as the last step before sunscreen, morning and night. The gel-cream sets quickly and takes makeup over it without pilling, which is why it gets used by people who found the cream version too rich. Aveeno's own claim is an instant soothing effect plus barrier restoration within two hours; treat that as a brand claim measured by the brand, not as an independent finding.
What the listing claims
The listing imagery
Three frames from the listing carousel, three across. Buyer-uploaded photos were not exposed on this capture path, so none appear here.
Product rating
The star average and the percentage split across the five buckets, as rendered on the listing at capture time.
4.5 out of 5 from 9,388 ratings. 76% of them sit in the top bucket and the one-and-two star tail is 6%.
The distribution is the profile of a product that works for most people and fails hard for a minority. Three quarters of all ratings are five-star, and the one-and-two star tail is only 6% - but read the 4% one-star slice against the review summary, which repeatedly mentions reactions on skin that expected to tolerate it. A high average with a thin rejection tail is a tolerability signal, not a guarantee.
| Bucket | Share | Implied ratings | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 star | 76% | 7,135 | The base of the average. |
| 4 star | 12% | 1,127 | Satisfied, with a caveat. |
| 3 star | 6% | 563 | Mixed experience. |
| 2 star | 2% | 188 | A real complaint. |
| 1 star | 4% | 376 | Rejection — texture, reaction or delivery. |
What buyers say
Amazon's own review summary and the aspect counts behind it. Individual review bodies sit behind a sign-in wall on this capture path, so the evidence here is the aggregate layer rather than quoted text.
Customers find this moisturizer highly effective, particularly for sensitive and inflamed skin, and appreciate its gentle, non-irritating formula. The product receives positive feedback for its texture, with customers describing it as soft, smooth, and non-greasy, while being fragrance-free. Customers disagree on whether it's worth the price.
| Aspect | Mentions | Positive | Negative | Positive share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness | 608 | 504 | 104 | 83% |
| Moisturizing | 433 | 365 | 68 | 84% |
| Skin compatibility | 259 | 201 | 58 | 78% |
| Texture | 212 | 188 | 24 | 89% |
| Skin irritation | 179 | 108 | 71 | 60% |
| Non-greasy | 165 | 132 | 33 | 80% |
| Value for money | 159 | 96 | 63 | 60% |
| Fragrance-free | 153 | 119 | 34 | 78% |
The most contested theme is skin irritation at 60% positive across 179 mentions; the most settled is texture at 89% across 212. An aspect sitting near the middle is split opinion, not a verdict.
Product ingredients
22 declared ingredients, grouped by the function printed on the record and graded on comedogenic and irritancy level. Skinsort publishes the table; COSDNA did not answer on the capture date, and the methodology section says what that costs the analysis.
What is inside
Each badge is a claim the source checked against the formula. A tick means nothing on the trigger list was found; a cross means something was, and the parenthetical note names it.
- ✓Alcohol-free Alcohol Free
- ✓EU-allergen-free EU Allergen Free
- ✓Fragrance-free No fragrance ingredients found
- ✓Oil-free Oil Free
- ✓Paraben-free Paraben Free
- ✓Sulfate-free Sulfate free
- ✓Pore-clogger-free No potential pore cloggers found on the current trigger list
- ✓Reef-safe Nothing to flag
- ✗Silicone-free 3 ingredients: Dimethicone, Dimethicone Crosspolymer, Dimethiconol
- ✗Cruelty-free Not Cruelty Free
- ✗Fungal-acne-safe 3 flagged ingredients
- ✗Vegan Not Vegan
Claim scorecard
8 of 12 claims hold. Eight of twelve badges come back clean, including the three that matter most for this category: no fragrance, no pore-clogging trigger, no alcohol. The four that fail are the ones that separate it from a clinical product. It carries three silicones, so it is not silicone-free; the brand is not on the cruelty-free list; three rows are flagged on the fungal-acne screen, which matters if you are prone to malassezia folliculitis; and the formula is not vegan.
How the formula is built
Groups are derived from the function column, not published by the source, so treat them as a reading aid. One artefact to know about: colloidal oat solids carry the function tag abrasive on the record, which files them under cleansing by name rather than by job. The two largest groups - skin conditioning and emulsifiers - describe the silicone gel network that gives this product its texture rather than its active story.
Comedogenic and irritancy levels
Every row is placed in one of four levels using the worse of its comedogenic and irritancy grades. Rows the source leaves ungraded keep their own bucket rather than being read as zero — an unrated ingredient is unknown, not innocent.
| Level | Rows | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Level 1 · no flag No comedogenic or irritancy grade recorded against it. | 2 | 9.1% |
| Level 2 · low (1) Grade 1 — broadly tolerated, occasionally relevant on very congested skin. | 3 | 13.6% |
| Unrated No grade published: unknown rather than safe. | 17 | 77.3% |
Only five of the twenty-two rows carry a published grade at all, and every one of those five is grade 1 or lower. That is a genuinely clean graded subset - but it covers less than a quarter of the formula. Any non-comedogenic claim built on this table is built on five ingredients, and the honest headline is that seventeen rows are unassessed rather than proven safe.
Named ingredient groups
| Group | What it does | Rows |
|---|---|---|
| Antioxidants | Shields skin from free radical damage. | 2 ingredients |
| Exfoliators | Removes dead skin cells to smoothe texture. | 2 ingredients |
What the formula flags
| Concern | What it means |
|---|---|
| May Worsen Oily Skin | Can increase shine or excess oil. |
Complete ingredient list
Declaration order, 22 rows. Scroll inside the panel. The level column is the worse of the two grades.
| # | Ingredient | Function | Acne | Irritant | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Water | Skin Conditioning | — | — | — |
| 2 | Glycerin | Humectant | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 3 | Dimethicone | Emollient | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 4 | Cetearyl Olivate | — | — | — | — |
| 5 | Avena Sativa Kernel Flour | Abrasive | — | — | — |
| 6 | Sorbitan Olivate | Emulsifying | — | — | — |
| 7 | Polyacrylamide | — | — | — | — |
| 8 | Synthetic Beeswax | Emulsion Stabilising | — | — | — |
| 9 | Phenoxyethanol | Preservative | — | — | — |
| 10 | C13-14 Isoparaffin | Emollient | — | — | — |
| 11 | Butylene Glycol | Humectant | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 12 | Dimethicone Crosspolymer | Emulsion Stabilising | — | — | — |
| 13 | Panthenol | Skin Conditioning | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 14 | Chlorphenesin | Antimicrobial | — | — | — |
| 15 | Dimethiconol | Emollient | — | — | — |
| 16 | Carbomer | Emulsion Stabilising | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 17 | Laureth-7 | Emulsifying | — | — | — |
| 18 | Chrysanthemum Parthenium Flower/Leaf/Stem Juice | Antioxidant | — | — | — |
| 19 | Ethylhexylglycerin | Skin Conditioning | — | — | — |
| 20 | Sodium Hydroxide | Buffering | — | — | — |
| 21 | Avena Sativa Kernel Extract | Abrasive | — | — | — |
| 22 | Centella Asiatica Extract | Cleansing | — | — | — |
Product price
Buy-box pricing first, then the tracked history. Native USD for a US address; nothing is converted and nothing is estimated.
Tracked price history
| Price type | Lowest ever | Highest ever | Current | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon | $12.99 May 13, 2023 | $23.99 Oct 04, 2020 | $19.49 Oct 25, 2026 | $18.92 |
| 3rd Party New | $10.94 Jan 04, 2023 | $42.95 Apr 21, 2021 | $19.49 Oct 25, 2026 | $20.86 |
| 3rd Party Used | — | — | — | — |
The curve
The full tracked series. Flat stretches are periods when the offer did not move; vertical spikes are third-party sellers entering and leaving the buy box.
Reading the numbers
Nineteen forty-nine at the buy box against a 26.68 list price, which is a 27% discount that Amazon has been running long enough that it functions as the real price. The tracked Amazon series averages 18.92 over six years, so today's figure sits about 3% above the long-run average and 50% above the all-time low of 12.99 set in May 2023. The 3rd-party series is wider - 10.94 to 42.95 - and its high is a marketplace artefact rather than anything the brand did.
The only series carrying observations is Amazon: current $19.49 against an all-time average of $18.92, a tracked range of $12.99 to $23.99. Monitoring began Sep 03, 2020 and the last tracked observation is dated Oct 25, 2026.
How to read a tracked price
The current column is the last observation the tracker recorded, not a live quote, and every summary figure is all-time rather than period-specific. A low far under the average usually marks a clearance or a third-party dump rather than a price this listing normally holds.
Who it suits
This is a well-made, honestly labelled moisturiser for skin that is currently angry: no fragrance, no alcohol, a short and legible actives story, and a texture that suits people who cannot wear cream. It is not a treatment. Nothing in the formula targets pigment, texture or lines, the silicone load will not suit everyone, and a third of the claims on the badge sheet do not hold. Buy it as a calm, cheap, reliable base layer and it earns its price; buy it expecting it to repair a compromised barrier on its own and the two-hour claim will disappoint.
Buy it if
Sensitive, reactive or rosacea-adjacent skin; anyone who reacts to fragrance; oily and combination skin that rejects cream textures; a first moisturiser for someone building a routine around a prescription active; buyers who want a sub-$20 fragrance-free jar they can re-buy without thinking.
Skip it if
Fungal-acne or malassezia-prone skin, given three flagged rows; anyone who wants a silicone-free formula; skin that is genuinely dry and needs occlusive oils rather than a water gel; buyers looking for anti-ageing or brightening from their moisturiser.
How this was assembled
| Block | Confidence | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Price, availability, seller | High | Buy box read against a US delivery address; USD native, no conversion |
| Listing specifications | High | Specification table transcribed from the rendered listing |
| Rating and star split | High | Rendered on the listing at capture time |
| Review sentiment | Medium | Amazon's aggregate summary and aspect counts; individual review bodies were behind a sign-in wall and are not quoted |
| Ingredient table (22 rows) | High on identity, medium on grades | One full read of the Skinsort record; grades are community aggregates, not a regulatory standard |
| Comedogenic / irritancy levels | Medium | Only the graded subset informs it; unrated rows are reported as unknown |
| Price history | High on transcription, medium on recency | Summary table transcribed verbatim from the tracker; the current column is a last observation |
One channel did not report
The COSDNA lookup returned a bot challenge on every route attempted on the capture date, so no COSDNA grade exists for this product and nothing was substituted for it. The ingredient analysis rests on a single source and says so rather than borrowing numbers from a near-match formula.
Capture date 2026-11-01. Price, rank and rating are live values and move between captures; two runs a day apart on the same listing routinely disagree.
Prepared for readers comparing facial moisturisers on the US market. No reviewer name, handle, profile link, avatar or identifier appears anywhere in this document. Figures are as rendered at the capture date and are not a forecast.