CeraVe's hydrating serum has the largest sample in this batch by a factor of four and the cleanest star distribution of the three products collected today. It also has a single aspect that splits 30 to 70 against it, a silicone that fails its own badge, and an emollient rated 3 to 5 on the comedogenicity scale sitting under a WON'T CLOG PORES stamp. This is what the numbers separate.
Amazon US · captured with a New York 10001 delivery address · snapshot 31 October 2026 · all prices native USD · no reviewer identities reproduced
| Live price | Rating | Ratings | Ingredients | Claims held |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $16.97 | 4.6 / 5 | 31,278 | 25 | 8 / 12 |
Price and rating read from the listing on 31 October 2026. Eight of twelve claim badges hold; four fail, two of them on the acne screen.
1 / Product
A pharmacy serum that leads with barrier, not with an active
Thirty millilitres of clear gel in a white pump bottle, blue band, CeraVe wordmark over the line DEVELOPED WITH DERMATOLOGISTS. The front panel names three things and nothing else: 3 essential ceramides, hyaluronic acid and vitamin B5. There is no percentage, no acid, no brightening claim - which already tells you this is a hydration product sitting on a shelf of actives, competing on tolerance rather than on results per week.
Source: Amazon
Source: Amazon
Source: Amazon
Three listing frames, carousel order. No buyer-uploaded photograph rendered on any capture attempt and no review-media gallery exists for this ASIN, so the gallery here is listing imagery only. The third frame is the one to keep in view: it is where the pack makes the claim that the ingredient section later tests.
Declared specifications
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Brand | CeraVe |
| Title | CeraVe Hyaluronic Acid Serum for Face, Hydrating Serum for Dry Skin, 1oz |
| Size | 30 ml / 1 fl oz |
| Item form | Gel serum in a pump bottle |
| Skin type (declared) | Dry |
| Declared benefits | Hydrating, smoothening, soothing |
| Scent | Fragrance free |
| Special ingredients (declared) | Ceramides, hyaluronic acid, niacinamide, vitamin B5 |
| Item model number | 1653805 |
| UPC | 768587594076 (plus two further codes on the listing) |
| Dimensions | 1.75 x 1.75 x 6.5 in |
| Availability | In stock |
| Sold by | Amazon.com |
| Category rank | #1,180 in Beauty & Personal Care; #37 in Facial Serums |
What the brand claims
- Highest hyaluronic acid concentration. The listing calls it our highest concentration of hyaluronic acid, positioned as an ingredient that helps skin retain its natural moisture.
- Lightweight gel texture. Apply in a thin layer to slightly damp skin and let it absorb fully before layering anything else - an instruction specific enough to be a formulation constraint.
- 24-hour hydration via MVE. Vitamin B5 to soothe, plus CeraVe's patented MVE delivery technology for continuous release.
- Three essential ceramides. Ceramides 1, 3 and 6-II, chosen because ceramides make up roughly half the lipids in the skin barrier.
- Developed with dermatologists. The brand-level claim, with the IQVIA survey footnote attached to the dermatologist-recommendation line.
That last observation is worth holding onto, because it connects directly to the review data. A brand that instructs users to wait for full absorption before layering is describing a real behaviour of high-humectant gels: they are tacky until they dry. The aspect table in the next section shows that this exact behaviour is the one thing buyers punish.
2 / Rating
The biggest sample in the batch, and the cleanest distribution
4.6 out of 5 from 31,278 ratings. With a sample that size the percentages stop being noise, which makes this the most statistically solid product in the batch and the one whose outliers are most worth believing.
Share of ratings by star, as published on the listing histogram.
79% five-star, 13% four-star, 5% three-star, 1% two-star, 2% one-star. Ninety-two percent at four stars or above, and a bottom two buckets of 1% and 2% that are ordered the conventional way - unlike the other two products collected today, both of which had more one-star ratings than two-star. On 31,278 ratings, 1% is roughly 313 votes, so even the smallest bucket is a real population rather than a rounding artefact. This distribution says the product does what it says for the overwhelming majority of buyers, with a small, stable minority who got nothing from it.
Eight themes, one of them broken
The aspect counters are where this product stops being unremarkable. Seven of eight themes score between 77% and 94% positive. The eighth scores 30%.
Positive share per aspect. Note that consistency is the only bar under 50%, and it is not the least-discussed theme.
| Aspect | Mentions | Positive | Negative | Positive share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| effectiveness | 1,091 | 890 | 201 | 82% |
| moisturizing | 674 | 574 | 100 | 85% |
| texture | 393 | 305 | 88 | 78% |
| non-greasy | 322 | 248 | 74 | 77% |
| fragrance-free | 131 | 123 | 8 | 94% |
| absorption | 119 | 99 | 20 | 83% |
| lightweight | 117 | 107 | 10 | 91% |
| consistency | 116 | 35 | 81 | 30% |
Read the last row twice. Consistency: 116 mentions, 35 positive, 81 negative, 30%. Every other theme in this table is a passing grade, and this one is a two-to-one rejection. It is not a marginal complaint about a product nobody noticed either - 116 mentions puts it level with absorption and lightweight, so it is a real, repeated objection rather than a stray theme.
The pattern across the table explains itself. Lightweight scores 91% and non-greasy 77% while consistency sits at 30%, which is not a contradiction - it is a description. Buyers agree the product feels light and non-greasy once it is on, and they disagree sharply about what comes out of the bottle. That is the signature of a gel whose thickness varies, or of buyers with different expectations of what a serum should pour like. The brand's own instruction to apply in a thin layer to damp skin and wait for absorption is, in effect, an acknowledgement that the product's texture needs managing.
Effectiveness at 82% on 1,091 mentions is the volume leader by a wide margin and a good-but-not-exceptional score. Moisturizing at 85% on 674 is where the ceramide and humectant system earns its keep. Fragrance-free at 94% on 131 is the highest score in the table and the one least likely to be contested, since it is a fact about the formula rather than an experience of it.
The aggregate summary
Customers find the serum effective and appreciate its hydrating properties, with one noting it works well for sensitive skin. The product receives positive feedback for its soft, smooth texture, non-greasy feel, and fragrance-free formula, while also absorbing quickly into the skin without leaving a heavy sensation. The consistency receives mixed reviews, with some customers describing it as rich while others find it thicker than expected.
This is the one summary in the batch that actually flags its own weak point - the consistency receives mixed reviews - and it matches the counter exactly. The prose calls it mixed; the numbers say 30% positive, which is not mixed but majority-negative. The direction is the same, the severity is not, and the number is the better guide.
No review body rendered. Desktop page, mobile fallback and the China-context retry all returned zero review text across three timed retries with fresh sessions. Nothing here is presented as a buyer's own words.
3 / Ingredients
Twenty-five rows, four failed badges, and a regional caveat
One limitation has to come first, because it governs the whole section. The ingredient list captured for this SKU is the Norway-declared formula. Skinsort serves this product in two regional versions; the US variant was requested through two URL forms and returned either the same Norway page or a 404, and the Amazon listing does not publish an INCI table at all. Everything below is therefore a test of the documented formula, not a verified US declaration. That is a real gap and it is stated wherever it affects a conclusion.
With that in place: 25 rows, all captured. COSDNA returned a Cloudflare challenge on this pass, so its acne, irritancy and safety columns do not exist for this SKU. The classes below follow one stated rule throughout - Level 5 for a published rating of 3 or more, Level 4 for a rating of 2, Level 3 for a database flag or pH-active without a 2+ rating, Level 2 for functional rows rated 1 or below, Level 1 for the unflagged backbone.
Rows per functional-risk class. This is the only product in the batch with a Level 5 row.
| Level | Meaning | Rows | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | carrier, humectant or barrier-lipid backbone | 9 | 36% |
| Level 2 | low-concern functional, rated 1 or below | 8 | 32% |
| Level 3 | database flag or pH-active | 6 | 24% |
| Level 4 | published rating of 2 | 1 | 4% |
| Level 5 | published rating of 3 or more | 1 | 4% |
The two headline rows are at opposite ends of the list and at opposite ends of the scale. Cetearyl alcohol at position 4, rated 2 for comedogenicity and 1 for irritancy, is Level 4. Isopropyl myristate at position 19, rated 3 to 5 for comedogenicity and 3 for irritancy, is Level 5 - the only Level 5 row across all three products collected today. Between them sit four flagged emulsifier rows and a clean ceramide block that is genuinely well built.
The same rows by function
Ingredient count per functional group. Seven groups across 25 rows.
Five barrier lipids - three ceramides, cholesterol and phytosphingosine - plus four humectants is a serious hydration core, and it is the reason moisturizing scores 85% and barrier repair tops the benefit table. Against that, four emollient rows carry every flag in the document: cetearyl ethylhexanoate, cetearyl alcohol, dimethicone and isopropyl myristate are the entire acne and silicone problem, and they are all doing the same job - making a gel feel smooth rather than wet.
What is inside: eight holds, four failures
| Claim | Result | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Alcohol-free | Holds | no alcohol denat.; cetearyl alcohol is a solid fatty alcohol |
| EU allergen free | Holds | no ingredient from the EU 1223/2009 declarable-allergen list |
| Fragrance-free | Holds | no Fragrance or Parfum row at any position |
| Oil-free | Holds | no plant, mineral or synthetic oil; emollients are esters, a fatty alcohol and a silicone |
| Paraben-free | Holds | phenoxyethanol is the only conventional preservative |
| Sulfate-free | Holds | no alkyl sulfate; behentrimonium methosulfate is a quaternary ammonium salt, a different class |
| Reef-safe | Holds | no UV filter of any kind |
| Silicone-free | Fails | dimethicone at position 5 |
| Cruelty-free | Fails | the database records the product or brand as not cruelty-free |
| Vegan | Fails | the database records the formula as not vegan |
| Fungal acne safe | Fails | four flagged rows: cetearyl ethylhexanoate, cetearyl alcohol, cetearyl glucoside, isopropyl myristate |
| Pore-clogger-free | Fails | cetearyl alcohol (2/1) and isopropyl myristate (3-5/3) both on the blocklist |
The badge on the third image
The third carousel frame carries a circular stamp reading WON'T CLOG PORES and the words Oil-free & Non-comedogenic. The documented list contains isopropyl myristate at position 19, rated 3 to 5 for comedogenicity, and cetearyl alcohol at position 4, rated 2. Both are on the pore-clogger blocklist. Two rows against a stamp that says there are none.
The concentration argument is real and it belongs on the same page as the flag. Isopropyl myristate sits at position 19 of 25 - after the preservative, in the tail of the formula - so its share is small, and the database itself says a flag is not a prediction. Cetearyl alcohol at position 4 is the harder one to argue away, because position 4 in a 25-row list is a material amount, and its rating of 2 is published rather than inferred. A buyer with acne-prone skin has two defensible readings of this product and the pack only offers one of them.
The complete ingredient list
| # | Ingredient | Function | Role here | Comedo. | Irrit. | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Water | Skin conditioning, solvent | Solvent base | - | - | 1 |
| 2 | Glycerin | Humectant, skin conditioning, skin protecting | Primary humectant | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 3 | Cetearyl Ethylhexanoate | Emollient, skin conditioning | Emollient ester, fungal-acne potential trigger | - | - | 3 |
| 4 | Cetearyl Alcohol | Emollient, emulsifying, emulsion stabilising | Fatty alcohol, on the pore-clogger list | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| 5 | Dimethicone | Emollient, skin conditioning, skin protecting | Silicone occlusive, the silicone-free failure | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 6 | Sodium Hyaluronate | Humectant, skin conditioning | Hyaluronic acid salt, the headline humectant | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 7 | Panthenol | Skin conditioning | Vitamin B5, soothing humectant | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 8 | Polyacrylate Crosspolymer-6 | Emulsion stabilising | Synthetic rheology modifier | - | - | 2 |
| 9 | Ceramide NP | Skin conditioning | Barrier lipid, ceramide 3 | - | - | 1 |
| 10 | Ceramide AP | Skin conditioning | Barrier lipid, ceramide 6-II | - | - | 1 |
| 11 | Ceramide EOP | Skin conditioning | Barrier lipid, ceramide 1 | - | - | 1 |
| 12 | Carbomer | Emulsion stabilising, gel forming | Gel former for the serum body | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 13 | Cetearyl Glucoside | Emulsifying, surfactant | Sugar emulsifier, fungal-acne potential trigger | - | - | 3 |
| 14 | Behentrimonium Methosulfate | Surfactant | Quaternary surfactant, conditioning slip | - | - | 3 |
| 15 | Sodium Hydroxide | Buffering | Alkali used to set final pH | - | - | 3 |
| 16 | Sodium Lauroyl Lactylate | Emulsifying | Mild emulsifier and barrier co-factor | - | - | 2 |
| 17 | Cholesterol | Emollient, emulsifying, skin conditioning | Barrier lipid, third leg of the ceramide trio | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | Phenoxyethanol | Preservative | Primary preservative | - | - | 3 |
| 19 | Isopropyl Myristate | Emollient, masking | Emollient ester, the highest-rated row in the list | 3-5 | 3 | 5 |
| 20 | Caprylyl Glycol | Emollient, humectant, skin conditioning | Emollient and preservative booster | - | - | 2 |
| 21 | Citric Acid | Buffering, chelating, masking | pH trim | - | - | 3 |
| 22 | Trisodium Ethylenediamine Disuccinate | Chelating | Chelator, stability support | - | - | 2 |
| 23 | Xanthan Gum | Emulsifying, emulsion stabilising, gel forming | Gum thickener | - | - | 2 |
| 24 | Phytosphingosine | Skin conditioning | Barrier signalling lipid | - | - | 1 |
| 25 | Ethylhexylglycerin | Skin conditioning | Preservative booster and deodoriser | - | - | 2 |
Declared INCI order, unbroken
Water, Glycerin, Cetearyl Ethylhexanoate, Cetearyl Alcohol, Dimethicone, Sodium Hyaluronate, Panthenol, Polyacrylate Crosspolymer-6, Ceramide NP, Ceramide AP, Ceramide EOP, Carbomer, Cetearyl Glucoside, Behentrimonium Methosulfate, Sodium Hydroxide, Sodium Lauroyl Lactylate, Cholesterol, Phenoxyethanol, Isopropyl Myristate, Caprylyl Glycol, Citric Acid, Trisodium Ethylenediamine Disuccinate, Xanthan Gum, Phytosphingosine, Ethylhexylglycerin.
Five readings that matter more than the list
- The ceramide trio is the real product. Ceramide NP, AP and EOP sit at 9, 10 and 11, paired with cholesterol at 17 and phytosphingosine at 24 - the full co-factor set a ceramide barrier system needs. This is a deliberately engineered hydration core, not a token addition, and it is what the 85% moisturizing score is buying.
- The specification block names an ingredient the list does not contain. The listing's Special Ingredients field lists niacinamide; there is no niacinamide in the 25 documented rows. Either the US formula differs - which is plausible, given the regional gap - or the field is stale. This is exactly the kind of discrepancy the Norway-formula caveat exists to flag.
- Dimethicone is the reason the silicone-free badge fails, and it is also credited as a benefit. At position 5 it gives the gel its slip and its non-greasy finish, and the database's own benefit table credits it under scar healing. The badge says no; the formula says yes; both are true statements about different things.
- Quaternary surfactant as a texture agent. Behentrimonium methosulfate at 14 is a conditioning surfactant more often found in hair care than in a face serum. It is not an SLS-type sulfate and the sulfate-free badge correctly holds, but it is an unusual choice in a product marketed on sensitivity.
- Twelve of twenty-five rows carry no published rating at all. Nearly half the formula is unrated by the database. The Level column still classifies them by function, which is why the disclaimer about class ranking versus safety score matters here more than on a shorter list.
4 / Price
The deepest discount in the batch, sitting under a suspect floor
The record runs from 2 January 2019 to this snapshot - the longest of the three products. Everything is native USD, transcribed from the all-time summary and checked against the live listing on the collection date.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| List price | $22.99 |
| Live price, 31 Oct 2026 | $16.97 - 26.2% off list |
| Subscribe & Save | $15.27 - 34.0% off list |
| Amazon all-time low | $5.08, 14 Jul 2020 - suspect |
| Amazon all-time high | $20.99, 08 Jun 2023 |
| Amazon all-time average | $17.64 |
| 3rd Party New all-time low | $5.99, 27 Oct 2021 - suspect |
| 3rd Party New all-time high | $36.01, 25 Apr 2022 |
| 3rd Party New average | $14.19 |
| 3rd Party Used | no data for this price type |
| Monitoring start | 02 Jan 2019 |
The price history table, as published
| Price type | Lowest ever | Highest ever | Current | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon | $5.08 (14 Jul 2020) | $20.99 (08 Jun 2023) | $16.97 (08 Oct 2026) | $17.64 |
| 3rd Party New | $5.99 (27 Oct 2021) | $36.01 (25 Apr 2022) | $16.97 (08 Oct 2026) | $14.19 |
| 3rd Party Used | - | - | - | - |
The four measures per channel. Both current bars are identical at $16.97; the two 3rd Party extremes are what flatten the average.
This chart has a flaw that is worth naming rather than hiding: the 3rd Party New average of $14.19 is lower than every other number in the frame except the two suspect lows, because those lows are $5.99 and the current is $16.97. An average dragged below the current price by two outliers is not a benchmark, and it is why the derived analysis below leans on the Amazon channel.
Five dated observations
Five values per channel yields five dated observations in total - three from the marketplace and two from Amazon. Both channels land on the same $16.97 for 8 October 2026, so the last point carries both series.
Every dated observation in chronological order. Five points, two channels, no interpolation.
The shape, for what five points can support: the product got expensive in 2022, peaked on Amazon in 2023, and has been coming down since. The 3rd Party high of $36.01 in April 2022 and the Amazon high of $20.99 in June 2023 are 14 months apart, which is the only evidence available about direction - and both channels now read the same number, which is where a product settles after a period of divergence.
Where $16.97 sits
This is the best discount in the batch and it is real. $16.97 is 26.2% below the $22.99 list and 3.8% below the seven-year Amazon average of $17.64. On the two other serums collected today the current price sat at or above its own all-time average; here it sits below. That is the difference between a standing discount and a genuine one.
The Amazon high never reached the list price. $20.99 in June 2023 against a $22.99 list means this SKU has not sold at full suggested retail on the Amazon channel at any point the tracker recorded. The list price functions as a reference, not as a price anyone pays.
Two of the record's extremes should be treated as errors. A $5.08 low on a $22.99 product is a 78% discount, and $5.99 is 74%. Retail promotions on a 30 ml pharmacy serum do not take that shape; a pack-size or unit-price mismatch inside the tracker does. They are reported as published and used for nothing - and they are the reason the 3rd Party average of $14.19 cannot be trusted.
The channels converged, and stayed converged. Both read $16.97 on 8 October 2026. That is not competition, it is alignment, so there is no arbitrage between the buy-box options and no reason to prefer one route on price.
Subscribe & Save is worth having but is not a floor. $15.27 is 34% off list and 10.0% below the one-time price. For a serum used daily that is a reasonable standing reduction; it is not close to the $5.08 headline low, which as established is not a real price anyway.
Freshness is the weakest in the batch. The Amazon current is 23 days old, the last tracked date a month back, and the last automated scan two days. The live listing confirmed $16.97 on 31 October, so the figure stands - but on the product with the widest historical band, that confirmation matters more than usual.
5 / Method
Method, confidence, and the regional gap
A snapshot, not a quote. One reading taken on 31 October 2026 with a New York 10001 delivery address so that every price is native USD.
| Element | Confidence | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Live price of $16.97 | High | Listing read on the collection date, agrees with a 23-day-old tracker value |
| Rating 4.6 from 31,278 | High | Read from the listing rating block |
| Star distribution | High | Listing histogram; 31,278 ratings is a stable sample |
| Aspect counters | Medium | Amazon's own grouping; themes overlap and counts are not exclusive |
| Ingredient list (25 rows) | High | Declared list, count matches the database total |
| That the list is the US formula | Low | Only the Norway-declared version was obtainable |
| The non-comedogenic conflict | Medium | Holds for the documented formula; the US list is unverified |
| Level classification | Medium | Class ranking by a stated rule, not a database score |
| COSDNA acne / irritancy / safety | Not available | Channel blocked by Cloudflare |
| Individual review text | Not available | Zero review bodies rendered on three attempts |
| The $5.08 and $5.99 lows | Low | Reported as published but almost certainly recording artefacts |
| Price series between observations | Not available | Five values per channel is the whole record |
Seven things this report cannot settle
- Whether the US formula matches the Norway one. They may differ; the listing publishes no INCI table and the US variant of the database entry was not obtainable.
- Whether niacinamide is in the US product. The specification block names it; the documented list does not contain it. One of the two is wrong and this report cannot say which.
- Why consistency scores 30%. The counters show the objection; they do not say whether it is thickness, tackiness, pilling or expectation mismatch.
- What buyers actually wrote. No review body rendered, so the aspect counters and the aggregate summary are the only buyer-voice evidence.
- Whether the pack's non-comedogenic stamp holds for a given user. The database flags two rows; the finished product's behaviour depends on concentration and on the person.
- Whether the price floor is real. Two of the record's extremes look like tracking artefacts and neither can be verified from the summary block.
- Whether COSDNA has an entry for this SKU. The channel was blocked, so absence of a grade is not evidence of a clean formula.
Snapshot, 31 October 2026. The weakest evidence in this document is the ingredient layer, and that is stated at the top of the section rather than buried at the end - the price and rating figures here are far stronger than the formula is.
Collected and compiled 31 October 2026. Prices in USD. No reviewer names, handles, profile links or identifiers appear in this document.