US Marketplace Product Analysis
A men's root-lifting styling powder, assessed across listing facts, 31,380 ratings, ingredient-database coverage and a 44-month price record.
| ASIN | B0BSVQ71QQ |
| Brand / Manufacturer | L3 / L3V3L3 |
| Marketplace and currency | Amazon US, native USD, no conversion applied |
| Delivery context used | New York 10001 - a US address, confirmed on the rendered page |
| Snapshot date | 2026-10-27 |
| Category path | Beauty & Personal Care › Hair Care › Styling Products › Root Lifting Powders |
| Format and size | Loose powder, 60 g / 2.1 fl oz shaker canister (a 30 g pack is also referenced) |
| Availability | In stock, sold by BIGFLY |
1. Product Information
1.1 What this product is
A loose texturising powder for men's hair, dispensed from a shaker canister and worked into the roots by hand. The listing positions it narrowly: volume, texture and a matte finish, with no wet or glossy hold, and nothing about repair, growth or scalp treatment. Every value claim in the listing is a styling claim, and the specification block frames the product the same way - hair type Fine, Thin, Straight, department Mens, scent Natural, material type free Fragrance Free.
The size is the 60 g value can (2.1 fl oz). The brand copy states the powder is also sold in a 30 g pack, so the 60 g is the larger of two SKU-facing formats rather than the only one. At $17.50 for 2.1 oz the listing renders a unit price of $8.33 per ounce, which is the number to use when comparing it against smaller-format competitors - the headline price of a 30 g pack would look very different per gram.
1.2 Specification table as published
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Product Benefits | Natural look with volume and texture |
| Hair Type | Fine, Thin, Straight |
| Material Type Free | Fragrance Free |
| Scent | Natural |
| Liquid Volume | 2.1 fluid ounces |
| Item Volume | 2.1 fluid ounces |
| Unit Count | 2.1 Ounce |
| Number of Items | 1 |
| Item Weight | 2.1 ounces |
| Brand Name | L3 |
| Manufacturer | L3V3L3 |
| Department | Mens |
| UPC | 850036570592 |
| Best Sellers Rank | #88 in Beauty & Personal Care; #1 in Hair Root Lifting Powders |
| ASIN | B0BSVQ71QQ |
1.3 The five selling bullets
The listing makes five claims and they are unusually consistent with one another - each maps to a styling outcome rather than to an ingredient story:
- Natural look - volume and texture without visible product.
- No oily or greasy residue - the formula is claimed to leave nothing behind.
- Easy to apply - sprinkle and spread, no tooling required.
- Matte finish - explicitly a dry, non-shiny result.
- Adds volume and texture - the "second-day hair" feel on freshly washed hair.
1.4 Product imagery
Three images from the listing, shown side by side. They cover the pack shot, the application direction and the six-step usage guide.
Source: Amazon
Source: Amazon
Source: Amazon
No buyer-uploaded photographs were rendered for this listing at capture time, so none are reproduced here. Listing imagery has not been presented as customer photography.
2. Product Rating and Review Sentiment
2.1 Headline rating
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Average rating | 4.5 / 5 |
| Global ratings | 31,380 |
| Weighted check | 0.74×5 + 0.13×4 + 0.08×3 + 0.02×2 + 0.03×1 = 4.53, consistent with the displayed 4.5 |
| Written review text captured | None - the review block did not render on this capture |
The count is the important number here. 31,380 is a ratings count, not a review count: it measures how many buyers pressed a star, and the overwhelming majority of them wrote nothing. That distinction matters when reading the distribution, because a 4.5 from 31,380 ratings is a much more stable signal than a 4.5 from a few hundred, and it is far less detailed than 31,380 written reviews would be.
2.2 Star distribution
Bars are coloured as categorical identifiers in palette order; the colours are not value judgements. Counts are derived by applying each rounded share to the 31,380 total.
| Stars | Share | Approx. ratings |
|---|---|---|
| 5 star | 74% | ~23,221 |
| 4 star | 13% | ~4,079 |
| 3 star | 8% | ~2,510 |
| 2 star | 2% | ~628 |
| 1 star | 3% | ~941 |
| Total | 100% | 31,380 |
87% of ratings sit at four stars or above and the combined 1-2 star tail is 5%. The shape is top-loaded with a thin middle - 8% at three stars - which is the profile of a product that buyers either like quickly or reject outright rather than one they feel neutral about. Note the small inversion at the bottom: the 1-star bucket (3%) is larger than the 2-star bucket (2%). That pattern is common on high-volume listings, where a dissatisfied buyer either rates at the extreme or does not rate at all, leaving the 2-star bucket as the thinnest part of the curve. The buckets are rounded whole percentages, so the true 1-star and 2-star counts may be closer together than the display implies, and a 2% reading is not evidence that exactly 2% of buyers felt that way.
2.3 Aspect-level sentiment
Amazon publishes an AI-generated summary of review content for this ASIN, together with mention counts for eight aspects. The summary reads:
Customers find the hair powder provides great hold that lasts all day and adds volume while maintaining a natural look with a matte finish. The product offers good value for money, with one customer noting its good-sized bottle for the price. While some customers say it's not greasy on the hair, others find it makes their hair feel sticky. The fragrance receives mixed reactions, with some finding it fabulous while others note a strong smell.
| Aspect | Mentions | Positive | Negative | Positive share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hold | 574 | 439 | 135 | 76% |
| Value for money | 563 | 401 | 162 | 71% |
| Texture | 494 | 364 | 130 | 74% |
| Non-greasy | 487 | 276 | 211 | 57% |
| Volume | 485 | 425 | 60 | 88% |
| Fragrance | 321 | 222 | 99 | 69% |
| Longevity | 258 | 200 | 58 | 78% |
| Natural look | 253 | 230 | 23 | 91% |
Three readings stand out. Natural look is the strongest claim in the review corpus at 91% positive across 253 mentions - the thing the listing leads with is the thing buyers agree on most. Volume is the most-mentioned success at 88% positive across 485 mentions. Non-greasy is the weak point: at 57% positive it is the only aspect near a coin flip, and the summary itself records the split directly, with some buyers saying it is not greasy and others saying it makes hair feel sticky. A 57% reading is not a negative verdict - it is a genuinely divided one, and the honest interpretation is that residue feel varies by hair type and by how much powder is used, not that the claim fails.
Fragrance deserves a flag. The listing declares Fragrance Free in its specification block, yet 321 reviews discuss fragrance and 69% of them are positive, with the summary noting "some finding it fabulous while others note a strong smell". Those two statements can coexist - a base formula can be free of added perfume while its raw materials carry a detectable odour - but a buyer avoiding scent should read the review evidence rather than the specification line alone. Aspect mentions overlap, so the rows are not additive and do not sum to a share of the review base.
3. Product Ingredients
Result: the formula is not documented in either ingredient database.
Neither of the two independent cosmetic-ingredient databases consulted holds an entry for this product. No INCI list, no per-ingredient safety grade, no comedogenicity rating and no irritancy rating can therefore be reported. This is a documented absence, not a collection failure, and no substitute product was used to fill the gap.
3.1 What the coverage audit found
| Database | Queries run | Product entries matched | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| COSDNA | 4 | 0 | Full name, shortened name, and two renderings of the manufacturer name all returned no results |
| Skinsort | 3 | 0 | The brand itself is indexed with 3 products; this SKU is not among them |
The two negatives are not identical, and the difference is informative. COSDNA has no trace of the brand at all. Skinsort does hold a brand page for L3VEL3 carrying three other products - a two-phase leave-in detangler, a shaving gel and a texturising salt spray - so the absence here is a gap in that brand's catalogue coverage rather than an unknown brand. Either way the conclusion for this SKU is the same: no page exists on which an ingredient table could be read.
3.2 Why this product is unlikely to be indexed
Both databases are community-maintained and their catalogues are weighted heavily toward leave-on skincare - toners, serums, moisturisers, cleansers and sunscreens. Hair styling powders sit far outside that centre of gravity, and men's grooming powders further outside still. The absence observed here is consistent with that catalogue bias rather than with anything specific to this formula. That reading is interpretive and is offered as context, not as a collected finding.
3.3 Composition claims, and the evidence behind each
With no INCI list available, the only composition statements that exist for this product are the brand's own. They are listed below with the evidence tier each one actually reaches. The distinction between "the brand says so" and "an independent source confirms it" is the whole point of this table.
| Claim | Source of the claim | Independent corroboration | Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fragrance free | Product specification field, "Material Type Free" | None. Review corpus discusses fragrance extensively (321 mentions, 69% positive), with a reported "strong smell" among complaints | Brand-declared, partly contradicted by buyer experience |
| No oil, no greasy residue | Bullet points and A+ copy | None. The "non-greasy" aspect is the weakest in the review corpus at 57% positive | Brand-declared, contested by buyers |
| Matte finish | Bullet points, A+ copy, pack artwork | None from an ingredient source; the review summary does repeat "matte finish" | Brand-declared, echoed in review summary |
| Full INCI ingredient list | Not published anywhere in the listing | None. Neither database holds the product | Not available |
| Per-ingredient safety, acne risk, irritancy | Not published | None - cannot be rated without an INCI list | Not available |
3.4 What this means in practice
For a rinse-off styling product the absence of an ingredient table is inconvenient rather than decisive, but it does close off three specific questions. Comedogenicity cannot be assessed, which matters for anyone who applies a powder at the hairline and is prone to forehead breakouts. Irritancy cannot be assessed, which matters for a scalp-sensitive buyer. Allergen screening cannot be performed, which matters given that the brand declares fragrance-free while a substantial share of buyers report a pronounced smell - the two facts together suggest the odour comes from raw materials rather than from an added perfume, and only an INCI list could confirm which.
Two cautions on reading the absence correctly. First, not indexed is not the same as not safe: the absence of a database entry carries no information about the formula either way. Second, not indexed is not the same as not flagged: no negative finding exists here, only a missing one. Any ingredient statement about this product must come from the packaging or the manufacturer's own documentation, and anything else would be reconstruction rather than collection.
4. Product Price
4.1 Current pricing
| Price type | Amount | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Live selling price | $17.50 | Buy box, US delivery context, captured 2026-10-27 |
| Unit price | $8.33 per ounce | As rendered against the 2.1 oz net weight |
| Subscribe & Save | $14.87 | 15% below the one-time price |
| List / original price | Not displayed | No struck-through, "Was" or "Typical" reference price is rendered for this offer |
| Coupon or deal badge | None | No additional discount layer on the page |
The subscription tier is the only discount channel on the listing, and at 15% it is a material one - $2.63 per can. There is no reference price, which means the discount framing that usually anchors a beauty listing is simply absent: a buyer cannot see what the product "normally" costs, only what it costs now.
4.2 Price history, all channels
The record below covers the whole monitored life of the ASIN, from February 2023 to the capture date. All figures are all-time values; none of them is a one-, three-, six- or twelve-month statistic.
| Price type | Lowest ever | Highest ever | Current | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon | $12.09 (Oct 23, 2026) | $18.99 (Sep 16, 2026) | $17.99 (Oct 26, 2026) | $16.58 |
| 3rd Party New | $13.49 (Jun 23, 2025) | $17.50 (Aug 28, 2026) | $17.45 (Oct 24, 2026) | $17.11 |
| 3rd Party Used | - | - | - | - |
The used channel is empty across every field. That is a finding rather than a gap: no secondary resale market is tracked for this ASIN. List price on record is $14.99.
4.3 Price comparison across channels
The bars compare the four metrics that exist for each channel. The two channels have almost opposite shapes: Amazon swings across a $6.90 band while 3rd Party New stays inside $4.01, and Amazon is simultaneously the cheaper channel at its floor and the more expensive one at its ceiling. Amazon's average, $16.58, is $0.53 below the 3rd Party New average of $17.11, but its current price is above it - meaning the Amazon average is being pulled down by historical discount episodes rather than reflecting where Amazon normally sits.
4.4 Where the live price sits
| Benchmark | Value | Live price $17.50 vs benchmark |
|---|---|---|
| All-time low (Amazon) | $12.09 | +44.7% |
| List price on record | $14.99 | +16.7% |
| All-time average (Amazon) | $16.58 | +5.5% |
| All-time high (Amazon) | $18.99 | -7.8% |
| 3rd Party New current, $17.45 | $17.45 | +0.3% - effectively at parity |
All percentages in these two tables and charts are derived arithmetic, not source figures. They are computed against transcribed values and rounded to one decimal.
4.5 Reading the price record
The listing is trading near the top of its own range. At $17.50 it sits 44.7% above the all-time low and only 7.8% below the all-time high. The low is not a distant historical artifact - it was set on Oct 23, 2026, four days before capture - and the high was set on Sep 16, 2026, six weeks before. Both extremes are recent, which makes the present price look like the upper half of a fast cycle rather than a stable plateau.
The record is more volatile than the channel it competes with. Amazon's band is $6.90 wide against an average of $16.58, a 57.1% swing measured against its low; 3rd Party New's band is $4.01 against an average of $17.11, a 29.7% swing. The Amazon channel is where the price discovery happens, and the third-party channel tracks it with a lag and less amplitude.
Both channels sit above list. Amazon's average is 10.6% above the $14.99 list price and 3rd Party New's is 14.1% above it. Read inferentially, the list price functions as a floor reference rather than a ceiling: across the monitored period the market has cleared above it on average, not merely at this moment. That is an interpretation of the observed relationship, not a statement about the seller's intent.
The live price is below the tracker's last reading. The tracking record's most recent Amazon observation is $17.99 dated Oct 26; the capture on Oct 27 shows $17.50. A $0.49 move in a single day, in the direction of the third-party current price of $17.45, is consistent with the channels converging - and $17.50 happens to equal the highest price the third-party channel has ever recorded. On the evidence available, $17.50 looks like a negotiated resting point between the two channels rather than a discount event.
4.6 Freshness of the price picture
- Live capture, 2026-10-27: current.
- Amazon tracker observation, Oct 26, 2026: 1 day stale at capture.
- 3rd Party New tracker observation, Oct 24, 2026: 3 days stale at capture.
- Last update scan: approximately 1 day before capture; last tracked: approximately 21 days before capture.
All four are well inside any reasonable re-verification window, and none of them requires a caveat about ageing data. The structural caveat is different and unavoidable: the tracking record publishes five values per channel, not an observation-level series, so the path between the dated extremes is unknown and is not described here.
5. Commercial Position
5.1 Rank and category standing
Best Sellers Rank reads #88 in Beauty & Personal Care and #1 in Hair Root Lifting Powders. The gap between those two numbers is the useful signal: a category leader's rank in the parent node is usually far better than #88, so the pattern describes a product that dominates a narrow sub-category while competing for a modest share of the much larger beauty market. In practice that means the listing's visibility is concentrated in the root-lifting-powder node, and its competitive exposure there is low.
5.2 Demand signals
| Signal | Reading | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Ratings volume | 31,380 | Large accumulated base; the listing is established, not new |
| Monitoring start | Feb 13, 2023 | At least 44 months of continuous price tracking |
| Price stability | $6.90 Amazon band | Active price management rather than a fixed list |
| Subscription offer | 15% off | Repeat-purchase model is being pushed, typical of consumable styling products |
| Sold by | BIGFLY | Third-party seller in the buy box, not Amazon direct |
5.3 Who this product suits, and who it does not
| Buyer profile | Fit | Reason drawn from the collected evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Fine, thin or straight hair wanting lift | Strong | The stated hair-type field matches, and volume is the second-best performing aspect in the review corpus at 88% positive |
| Buyer wanting a visible, natural finish | Strong | Natural look is the highest-scoring aspect at 91% positive |
| Buyer wanting a sleek, structured style | Poor | The brand itself redirects this use case to its gel, pomade, wax or spray |
| Buyer sensitive to residue or stickiness | Uncertain | Non-greasy is the only split aspect at 57% positive, and the review summary records both experiences |
| Buyer avoiding fragrance | Uncertain | The specification says fragrance free, but 321 reviews discuss fragrance and some report a strong smell |
| Buyer screening ingredients for acne or irritation risk | Not supported | No INCI list is published and neither database holds the product |
6. Method, Confidence and Limitations
6.1 How the data was collected
| Element | Method |
|---|---|
| Listing facts, specifications, bullets, A+ copy | Read from the rendered product detail page |
| Price and availability | Buy box read in a US delivery context (New York 10001) with a USD currency preference; no conversion applied at any point |
| Rating and star distribution | Rating widget and all five histogram buckets, which sum to 100% |
| Sentiment aspects | Amazon's own AI-generated review summary and its aspect mention counts |
| Price history | All-time summary record for every price type, read as a single snapshot |
| Ingredient channels | Seven search queries across two independent cosmetic-ingredient databases |
| Reviewer privacy | No reviewer name, handle, profile identifier or profile link appears anywhere in this report |
6.2 Confidence by element
| Element | Confidence | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Title, brand, category path, specifications | High | Read from the page's own labelled fields |
| Live price | High | Single unambiguous buy-box amount in a confirmed US context |
| Rating and distribution | High | All buckets present and arithmetically consistent |
| Price history values | High | Transcribed verbatim; no inference involved |
| Derived percentages and spreads | High as arithmetic | Computed from transcribed values, one decimal |
| Sentiment aspects | Medium | An AI derivation over reviews, not a count of written statements; aspects overlap and are not additive |
| Individual buyer reviews | Not available | The review block did not render, so no review text is quoted |
| Buyer photographs | Not available | No review-media gallery was rendered; the zero is an observed absence |
| Ingredient composition | Not available | Not published by the brand and not indexed by either database |
6.3 Limitations
- Point-in-time snapshot. Price, rank, buy-box ownership and rating counts all move. Everything here is as of 2026-10-27.
- Ratings are not reviews. The 31,380 figure counts star ratings; the written review base is a small subset of it.
- No review text. The review block did not render across four access paths and three timed retries, so no quoted buyer voice is included and no recurring-complaint pattern is claimed from review text.
- Sentiment is derived, not read. Section 2.3 rests on Amazon's own summary of reviews. It is a pointer to the review corpus, not a substitute for it.
- Price history is all-time only. The source cannot produce period-specific lows, highs or averages, and none is presented as such.
- No observation-level price series. Five values per channel are published, not a change log, so the shape of the series between dated extremes is unknown.
- No ingredient data at all. Both databases returned nothing, and the brand publishes no INCI list, so no safety, comedogenicity or irritancy conclusion is drawn for this product.
- Delivery-location dependency. Price and availability reflect a US address; other addresses may see a different price or no offer.
- Rounded shares. Star buckets are whole percentages, so derived counts are approximate and small buckets should not be read to the individual rating.
Snapshot date 2026-10-27. All prices in USD as rendered for a US delivery address, with no currency conversion. Reviewer identities withheld. Where a field could not be collected it is reported as unavailable together with the reason, rather than estimated or reconstructed.