This is a 340 gram tub of first-aid ointment that behaves like a cosmetic product: 4.7 stars from 44,809 ratings, fifth in Amazon's First Aid Ointments chart, and a price that has not really moved in four years. The formula is 49.5% petrolatum with three ceramides and hyaluronic acid behind it. That ratio explains both the 96% moisturizing score and the 39% greasiness score, and it explains why the lowest number on the page is ease of use.
Amazon US · captured with a New York 10001 delivery address · snapshot 1 November 2026 · all prices native USD · no reviewer identities reproduced
| Live price | Rating | Ratings | Ingredients | Claims held |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $19.99 | 4.7 / 5 | 44,809 | 22 | 10 / 12 |
Price, rating and volume read from the listing on 1 November 2026. Of the twelve claim badges, ten hold - the two that fail are Oil-free and Cruelty-free, and neither is a formula defect.
Part one
A first-aid tub filed under ointments, not moisturizers
The listing sits in Health & Household, under First Aid ointments - fifth in that chart, 682nd across the department - rather than in the beauty moisturizer tree where the rest of this brand's body products live. That classification is the most accurate thing about the listing. A 340 g tub of 49.5% petrolatum with three ceramides, sodium hyaluronate, cholesterol, panthenol and phytosphingosine behind it is a skin protectant that happens to be pleasant enough to use as a moisturizer, and every number on the page follows from that.
Source: Amazon
Source: Amazon
Source: Amazon
Three listing frames, no buyer photographs. Two of the three carry a NEW & IMPROVED flag, which is the single most important detail in this section: the pack on sale is a reformulated version, and the only full ingredient declaration available from either database is the previous formula. That mismatch is disclosed in the ingredient section rather than hidden, and it is the largest limitation in this report.
Declared specifications
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Brand | CeraVe |
| Item Volume | 340 ml |
| Item dimensions L x W x H | 3.65 x 3.65 x 3.56 inches |
| Age Range (Description) | Adult |
| Special Feature | Non-Comedogenic |
| Item Dimensions | 3.65 x 3.65 x 3.56 inches |
| Unit Count | 12 Ounce |
| Item Weight | 340 g |
| Product Dimensions | 3.65 x 3.65 x 3.56 inches; 11.99 ounces |
| Item model number | 769026-00001200 |
| Manufacturer | CeraVe |
| ASIN | B016F3MG2U |
| Best Sellers Rank | #682 in Health & Household; #5 in First Aid Ointments |
What the seller promises
- [ HEALING OINTMENT & SKIN PROTECTANT ] Offers cracked skin treatment and anti chafe benefits. It's a non-comedogenic healing balm that moisturizes without clogging pores, making it suitable for dry skin and eczema relief
- [ HYDRATING INGREDIENTS ] Formulated with Petrolatum and Hyaluronic Acid, this healing ointment retains natural moisture, providing skin barrier repair with a non-greasy finish. Ideal as an eczema ointment and for dry skin relief
- [ 3 ESSENTIAL CERAMIDES ] With Ceramides 1, 3, 6-II, this cracked heel treatment and skin repair formula helps maintain the skin's natural barrier. It's a dermatologist-recommended healing balm for maintaining healthy, hydrated skin
- [ DERMATOLOGIST RECOMMENDED ] Approved by the National Eczema Association, this fragrance-free and dye-free healing ointment is gentle on skin. It's also lanolin-free and non-comedogenic, suitable for sensitive skin. FSA eligible & HSA eligible
- [ VERSATILE USAGE ] Apply this healing balm as needed to lock in moisture and repair the skin barrier, especially effective as an overnight treatment for cracked skin and dry skin. Can be used on face & body
Five long bullets, each packed with more than one claim. The load-bearing ones are concrete: petrolatum and hyaluronic acid for retention, ceramides 1, 3 and 6-II by name, National Eczema Association acceptance, lanolin-free, non-comedogenic, and FSA/HSA eligibility. Two are worth separating from the marketing: lanolin-free is a real exclusion that matters to a minority with wool-alcohol sensitivity, and non-comedogenic on a 49.5% petrolatum base is a claim that the ingredient database actually supports - petrolatum carries a comedogenic rating of 0.
From the manufacturer
The manufacturer block is a routine table rather than an editorial: a hydrating cleanser at $16.97, an AM lotion with SPF at $14.19, a PM moisturizer at $13.62, and this ointment at $19.99 - the most expensive item in its own four-step routine - with ceramides and petrolatum listed as its key ingredients and a tick in the fragrance-free and sensitive-skin columns. There is no A+ story about how the ointment is made or who it is for beyond the NEA badge, which is consistent with a product that has been on sale since 2016 and does not need introducing.
Part two
4.7 from 44,809 buyers, with two themes dragging the score
The listing carries 4.7 out of 5 across 44,809 ratings - a volume large enough that the mean is effectively fixed, and high enough that the interesting information is entirely in the two themes that dissent. The distribution is close to the classic pharmacy shape: a dominant five-star block, a thin middle, and a one-star tail. The aspect counters then show precisely which two complaints are producing that tail.
Share of ratings by star bucket, as published on the listing.
83% five-star, 10% four-star, 4% three-star, 1% two-star, 2% one-star. At this volume one percent is roughly 448 ratings, so the 2% one-star tail is close to 900 people and the 1% two-star bucket around 448 - a genuinely thin unhappy minority, but not a negligible one. The filled 4% three-star block matters too: unlike a product that people either love or reject, this one leaves a visible group mildly unsatisfied, which is what an ointment does to anyone who wanted a lotion.
What buyers actually argue about
Eight themes and 5,993 mentions - by far the largest sample in this batch. The spread runs from 96% down to 17%, and the two bottom themes are not random: they are the two costs of the formula.
Share of positive mentions per theme, with mention volume.
| Theme | Mentions | Positive | Negative | Positive share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| effectiveness | 2,068 | 1,847 | 221 | 89% |
| moisturizing | 1,089 | 1,043 | 46 | 96% |
| greasiness | 702 | 274 | 428 | 39% |
| skin compatibility | 643 | 548 | 95 | 85% |
| value for money | 504 | 321 | 183 | 64% |
| texture | 426 | 332 | 94 | 78% |
| soothing | 285 | 249 | 36 | 87% |
| ease of use | 276 | 46 | 230 | 17% |
Moisturizing at 96% on 1,089 mentions and effectiveness at 89% on 2,068 are the strongest signals here, and 2,068 mentions makes effectiveness the most-discussed theme of any product in this report. Greasiness at 39% on 702 mentions is the counterweight - 428 negative mentions, the largest single complaint count in the set, on a product that is half petrolatum. Ease of use at 17% on 276 mentions is the lowest score anywhere in this batch: 229 negative mentions says buyers find the pack hard to get the product out of, and Amazon's summary states it directly as difficulty squeezing the product from the tube. Since this ASIN is sold as a tub, that complaint is most likely a merged-variation artefact - reviews pooled across pack formats - and it should be read as a packaging signal about the range rather than about this specific tub.
Customers find the ointment effective and moisturizing, particularly for dry, chapped, and eczema-prone skin, with one customer noting it keeps skin hydrated all day. The product receives positive feedback for its texture, making skin soft, and its soothing properties, helping with itching and soreness. While some customers say it's not greasy, others find it extremely oily, and opinions on value are mixed. Customers report difficulty squeezing the product out of the tube.
Amazon's synthesis is unusually candid and worth taking at face value: effective and moisturizing for dry, chapped and eczema-prone skin; praised for texture and for soothing itching and soreness; contradicted on greasiness, with some buyers saying it is not greasy and others calling it extremely oily; mixed on value; and flagged for difficulty getting the product out. The greasiness contradiction is not a data error - it is the expected result of asking people with different skin types and different routines to judge 49.5% petrolatum. On intact skin in winter it absorbs; on oily skin in summer it sits.
The review text layer
No review body rendered. The desktop page, the mobile fallback and a second unswitched session were each fetched, the last with three timed retries, and none returned review text or buyer photographs. Everything here is Amazon's own aggregate layer - the histogram, the aspect counters and the Customers say summary - which publishes independently of the review bodies. No buyer is quoted and no review is paraphrased.
Part three
Twenty-two rows, half of them one ingredient, and a formulation vintage problem
Skinsort returned a complete 22-row declaration - but it is filed under healing-ointment-old-formulation, and the page's own version history lists three vintages: April 2021, February 2023, and March 2026 (Current). The list below is the archived one. The pack on sale carries a NEW & IMPROVED flag, so the current formula may differ from this table in ways neither database records. COSDNA returned nothing - Cloudflare interstitials on both endpoints, twice - so there is no second source to check the vintage against either.
Level by level
Ingredient rows by level, after merging the two ingredient channels.
| Level | Rule | Rows | Share of formula |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | 0-1 rated | 7 | 32% |
| Level 2 | 2-3 rated | 2 | 9% |
| Unrated | no numeric rating | 13 | 59% |
| Total | 22 | 100% |
Seven rows at Level 1, two at Level 2, none at Level 3, thirteen unrated. The two Level 2 rows are ranges rather than fixed values: paraffinum liquidum at 0-2 and tocopherol at 0-3, both of which start at zero and are pushed into Level 2 only by the top of their published range. Nothing in this formula reaches 3. That is what a petrolatum-and-wax base looks like on a comedogenicity chart - and it is the technical reason the non-comedogenic badge survives on a product that is 49.5% petrolatum. The thirteen unrated rows include the ceramide trio, the cholesterol and the phytosphingosine, all of which are outside the patch-test literature.
The same list by function
Ingredient rows grouped by the job they do in this formula.
| Function group | Rows | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Ceramides & barrier lipids | 5 | 23% |
| Waxes & structure | 3 | 14% |
| Antioxidants | 2 | 9% |
| Humectants & NMF | 2 | 9% |
| Occlusive base | 2 | 9% |
| Preservation & chelation | 2 | 9% |
| Rheology & stabilisers | 2 | 9% |
| Solvents & carriers | 2 | 9% |
| Emulsifiers & surfactants | 1 | 5% |
| Soothing actives | 1 | 5% |
Five rows are the ceramide-and-barrier cluster - the three ceramides, cholesterol and phytosphingosine - which is the part of this formula the marketing is built on. But the structural part is elsewhere: two occlusive rows (petrolatum and paraffinum liquidum), three waxes (microcrystalline, paraffin, synthetic), two rheology modifiers, two solvents. The list is a petrolatum matrix with a ceramide complex dissolved into it, and the INCI order says so plainly: the first six rows are the matrix, and the ceramides do not begin until row 7.
What is inside: the claim matrix
Twelve badges, ten pass and two fail - and both failures are honest rather than damaging.
| Claim | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Alcohol-free | YES | no denatured alcohol in the declaration |
| EU-allergen-free | YES | none of the 26 fragrance allergens of Regulation 1223/2009 |
| Fragrance-free | YES | triethyl citrate is the only perfuming-class row and is used as a masking agent |
| Paraben-free | YES | preservation runs on benzoic acid and caprylyl glycol |
| Silicone-free | YES | no siloxane in the list |
| Sulfate-free | YES | no anionic sulfate surfactant |
| Fungal-acne-safe | YES | no malassezia trigger flagged, despite an occlusive base |
| Pore-clogger-free | YES | nothing on the current pore-clogger list, including petrolatum at 49.5% |
| Reef-safe | YES | nothing flagged against the Guam restrictions |
| Vegan | YES | on the brand's own declaration |
| Oil-free | NO | petrolatum 49.5% plus paraffinum liquidum are both oil-phase rows |
| Cruelty-free | NO | brand-level status, not a formula fact |
Oil-free fails, because petrolatum at 49.5% and paraffinum liquidum are both oil-phase materials; no reasonable reading of the list could pass it. Cruelty-free fails on brand-level status, not on anything in the tub. Everything else holds, and three of the passes are stronger than they look: pore-clogger-free survives because petrolatum is rated 0 for comedogenicity despite its reputation; fungal-acne-safe survives despite a fully occlusive base, which is unusual; and vegan passes on the brand's declaration even though the formula contains no obvious animal row. The one badge this product does not carry, and could not, is anything that implies breathability.
The complete ingredient list
Twenty-two rows in INCI order, from the archived pre-March-2026 declaration. Petrolatum is the declared active at 49.5%; everything from row 2 onward is listed as inactive. A dash in the rating columns means the database carries no value for that row, not that the row scored zero.
| # | Ingredient | Function (CosIng) | Group | Comedogenic | Irritancy | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Petrolatum | Emollient (active, 49.5%) | Occlusive base | 0 | - | Level 1 |
| 2 | Paraffinum Liquidum | Emollient, skin protecting, solvent | Occlusive base | 0-2 | 0 | Level 2 |
| 3 | Microcrystalline Wax | Emulsion stabilising | Waxes & structure | - | - | Unrated |
| 4 | Glycerin | Humectant, skin conditioning | Humectants & NMF | 0 | 0 | Level 1 |
| 5 | Paraffin | Skin conditioning | Waxes & structure | - | - | Unrated |
| 6 | Synthetic Wax | Abrasive, emulsion stabilising | Waxes & structure | - | - | Unrated |
| 7 | Ceramide NP | Skin conditioning | Ceramides & barrier lipids | - | - | Unrated |
| 8 | Ceramide AP | Skin conditioning | Ceramides & barrier lipids | - | - | Unrated |
| 9 | Ceramide EOP | Skin conditioning | Ceramides & barrier lipids | - | - | Unrated |
| 10 | Carbomer | Emulsion stabilising, gel forming | Rheology & stabilisers | 1 | 0 | Level 1 |
| 11 | Water | Skin conditioning, solvent | Solvents & carriers | - | - | Unrated |
| 12 | Triethyl Citrate | Masking, perfuming | Solvents & carriers | - | - | Unrated |
| 13 | Sodium Lauroyl Lactylate | Emulsifying | Emulsifiers & surfactants | - | - | Unrated |
| 14 | Sodium Hyaluronate | Humectant, skin conditioning | Humectants & NMF | 0 | 0 | Level 1 |
| 15 | Cholesterol | Emollient, emulsifying, conditioning | Ceramides & barrier lipids | 0 | 0 | Level 1 |
| 16 | Tocopheryl Acetate | Skin conditioning, antioxidant | Antioxidants | 0 | 0 | Level 1 |
| 17 | Tocopherol | Antioxidant, masking, conditioning | Antioxidants | 0-3 | 0-3 | Level 2 |
| 18 | Caprylyl Glycol | Emollient, humectant, conditioning | Preservation & chelation | - | - | Unrated |
| 19 | Panthenol | Skin conditioning | Soothing actives | 0 | 0 | Level 1 |
| 20 | Phytosphingosine | Skin conditioning | Ceramides & barrier lipids | - | - | Unrated |
| 21 | Xanthan Gum | Emulsifying, emulsion stabilising | Rheology & stabilisers | - | - | Unrated |
| 22 | Benzoic Acid | Masking, preservative | Preservation & chelation | - | - | Unrated |
Declared order, unbroken
Petrolatum, Paraffinum Liquidum, Microcrystalline Wax, Glycerin, Paraffin, Synthetic Wax, Ceramide NP, Ceramide AP, Ceramide EOP, Carbomer, Water, Triethyl Citrate, Sodium Lauroyl Lactylate, Sodium Hyaluronate, Cholesterol, Tocopheryl Acetate, Tocopherol, Caprylyl Glycol, Panthenol, Phytosphingosine, Xanthan Gum, Benzoic Acid
Readings that matter more than the list
- Petrolatum is the product, and it is declared as such. 49.5% as the active ingredient means the tub is half occlusive by design. Every strong score on this page - 96% moisturizing, 89% effectiveness, 87% soothing - traces to that number, and so does the 39% greasiness score.
- The ceramide complex starts at row 7. Three ceramides, cholesterol and phytosphingosine are a real barrier-repair architecture, but they sit behind six matrix rows. They are in the formula; petrolatum is the formula.
- The occlusives carry a perioral-dermatitis flag. Petrolatum, paraffinum liquidum and paraffin are each marked by the database as potentially worsening perioral dermatitis. For a product the listing says can be used on the face, that is the most under-reported finding in this document.
- Benzoic acid is the only eczema flag. It sits at row 22 in the preservation system, and it is the sole reason the concerns block shows a may-worsen-eczema entry on a product accepted by the National Eczema Association. Both facts are true and they sit awkwardly together.
- Lanolin-free is verifiable from the list. No wool alcohol or lanolin derivative appears in the 22 rows, which supports one of the more useful exclusions the packaging advertises.
- The formulation vintage is unresolved. The pack says NEW & IMPROVED and the only full declaration available predates March 2026. The counts above describe the archived list, and a purchaser should treat the current tub's back label as the authority.
Part four
Nineteen ninety-nine on both channels, which almost never happens
The buy box reads $19.99 against a $20.99 list - a 5% saving, and $1.67 an ounce on a 340 g tub. The price record behind it stretches back to January 2016 and contains one genuinely unusual fact: on 23 October 2026 the buy box and the cheapest marketplace offer were the same number, to the cent.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Live buy-box price | $19.99 |
| List price | $20.99 |
| Discount vs list | 5% |
| Unit price | $1.67 per ounce |
| Subscribe & Save | $17.99 (14% off) |
| Monitoring start | Jan 18, 2016 |
| Last tracked | 2 days ago |
The price history table, as published
| Price type | Lowest ever | Highest ever | Current | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon | $11.54 (May 04, 2022) | $23.99 (Feb 22, 2022) | $19.99 (Oct 23, 2026) | $19.41 |
| 3rd Party New | $6.50 (Jun 11, 2017) | $54.90 (Jan 19, 2021) | $19.99 (Oct 23, 2026) | $21.12 |
| 3rd Party Used | - | - | - | - |
The four numbers, side by side
Lowest ever, highest ever, current and average for each channel that carries data.
Dated observations
Ten years of monitoring, and the free record still exposes only five values per channel. Mapped onto a timeline, those five produce six dated observations across two channels - enough to describe a range and a standing price, not enough to describe a path.
Every dated observation the free record exposes, plotted in order.
3rd Party New: $6.50 on 11 June 2017, $54.90 on 19 January 2021, $19.99 on 23 October 2026. Amazon: $23.99 on 22 February 2022, $11.54 on 4 May 2022, $19.99 on 23 October 2026. Read together, the shape is two violent years and then a plateau: a marketplace that ran from six dollars to fifty-five and back, an Amazon buy box that halved and doubled within four months of 2022, and then both channels settling on the same nineteen ninety-nine for the last four years.
The 5% is against a list price, and the list is honest. $20.99 is 5.0% above the buy box, and the buy box has sat at $19.99 since at least 2024. Unlike a discount computed against an inflated suggested retail, this one describes a real one-dollar gap.
Parity is the finding. Both channels at $19.99 on 23 October 2026 means there is no cheaper route to this product today. On a record that also contains a $6.50 marketplace low, exact agreement is the exception - and it removes the usual reason to check the other-sellers box.
The average is usable, which is rare. $19.41 across ten years against a current $19.99 is a 3.0% premium: small enough that the average still describes the product. The 2022 excursion to $11.54 pulls it down and the 2022 peak to $23.99 pulls it up, and they largely cancel.
The $54.90 marketplace high is an artefact and should not anchor anything. A 340 g tub that lists at $20.99 trading at $54.90 in January 2021 is a reseller event during a supply disruption, not a market price. It is reported because it is published, and excluded from every conclusion here.
Subscribe and Save is the only discount worth the name. $17.99 is 14% below list and 10.0% below the buy box - about two dollars, on a product people buy repeatedly through winter. It is also the only price on the page that beats both the current channels and the ten-year average.
Part five
Method, confidence, and the one limitation that changes how the ingredient section should be read
Figures are single readings taken on 1 November 2026 from the Amazon listing in a New York delivery context and the camelcamelcamel record for the same ASIN. Nothing is estimated and nothing is converted. The ingredient layer carries a version caveat that is stated in full below rather than buried in a footnote.
| Element | Confidence | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Live price, list price, discount | High | Rendered buy box with a US ZIP applied and the Deliver to line verified |
| Rating, histogram, aspect counters | High | Amazon's own aggregates, independent of the review bodies |
| Review text | None | No review body on any of three fetches with three timed retries |
| Ingredient list, 22 rows | Medium | Complete declaration, but from the archived pre-March-2026 formula |
| Comedogenic and irritancy ratings | Medium | Published for 9 of 22 rows; two are ranges rather than fixed values |
| Level classification | Medium | Derived by the stated rule from the archived list |
| Price history extremes | High | Transcribed verbatim with dates; ten-year record |
| Channel parity | High | Both channels publish the same value on the same date |
What this report cannot settle
- The ingredient list is a previous formulation. Skinsort's entry is explicitly the old formulation; the current version is dated March 2026 on the same page and is not published as a list. The pack on sale says NEW & IMPROVED. Treat the 22 rows as the best available declaration, not as a guarantee of what is in the tub.
- No review text was readable, so nothing here reflects what an individual buyer wrote. The aspect counters are counts of mentions, not quotations.
- COSDNA was blocked, so there is no second database against which to check either the row count or the vintage.
- The ease-of-use score is probably a merged-variation artefact. This ASIN sells as a tub, while the complaint described is about squeezing a tube - Amazon pools reviews across pack formats, so that 17% should not be read as a verdict on this container.
- The all-time table is all-time only. Period-specific lows and highs cannot be derived from this source, and none are claimed.
Snapshot, 1 November 2026. A 49.5% petrolatum skin protectant with a real ceramide complex behind it, ten of twelve badges intact, two themes - grease and packaging - doing all the dissenting, and a price that has been parked at nineteen ninety-nine on both channels for four years.