PURITO built this gel cream on a single dominant idea: 77% oat seed water, with squalane and panthenol doing the small work behind it. It is one of the cleanest claim sheets in the category - all twelve badges hold, including pore-clogger-free and fungal-acne-safe, which almost nothing with a lipid phase manages. The catch is on the other side of the page: the buy box is empty, and the only offer left is a marketplace seller asking more than the suggested retail price.
Amazon US · captured with a New York 10001 delivery address · snapshot 1 November 2026 · all prices native USD · no reviewer identities reproduced
| Availability | Rating | Ratings | Ingredients | Claims held |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No buy box | 4.5 / 5 | 8,834 | 17 | 12 / 12 |
The listing renders Currently unavailable with no add-to-cart control, so there is no live price to quote. Rating, rating volume and the ingredient list were all readable on the same capture.
Part one
A hundred-millilitre tube with one ingredient doing most of the work
This is a 100 ml / 3.38 fl oz squeeze tube of water-gel moisturizer, positioned for sensitive and blemish-prone skin and built almost entirely on Avena Sativa Seed Water at 77%. Everything else in the formula - squalane, panthenol, beta-glucan, dipotassium glycyrrhizate, three polyols and a biosurfactant emulsifier - shares the remaining 23%. It ranks 24th in Amazon's Face Moisturizers chart and 651st across Beauty and Personal Care, which is a strong position for a Korean import at this price. The listing's own comparison table is more revealing than the rank: the same table lists this cream's price as a dash, because there is nothing to buy.
Source: Amazon
Source: Amazon
Source: Amazon
Three listing frames, no buyer photographs. The frames disagree with each other in a way worth naming: the tube in the first frame is printed OAT IN CALMING GEL CREAM, while the second and third frames headline OAT CALMING GEL CREAM and Oat Blemish Calm Gel Moisturizer. The listing title uses the older name. This is a product mid-rename, and the packaging photograph is the newer state - which matters because the ingredient database files the same formula under the newer name.
Declared specifications
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Brand | PURITO |
| Item Volume | 100 ml |
| Item dimensions L x W x H | 1.77 x 1.77 x 6.3 inches |
| Age Range (Description) | Adult |
| Special Feature | Lightweight |
| Item Dimensions | 1.77 x 1.77 x 6.3 inches |
| Unit Count | 3.38 Fluid Ounces |
| Item Weight | 120 g |
| Product Dimensions | 1.77 x 1.77 x 6.3 inches; 4.23 ounces |
| Item model number | 1105145092 |
| Manufacturer | Hinature Inc. |
| ASIN | B09C1LW874 |
| Best Sellers Rank | #651 in Beauty & Personal Care; #24 in Face Moisturizers |
What the seller promises
- OAT BLEMISH CALMING CREAM (SIGNATURE GEL MOISTURIZER) — 77% oat seed water weightless water-gel moisturizer that helps calm the look of visible redness and post-blemish stress while keeping skin feeling balanced (not heavy). Clinically tested after 1 use: +108.63% inner hydration and +106.52% deep soothing
- CLINICALLY TESTED NON-COMEDOGENIC SUITABILITY + OIL BALANCE — Designed for blemish-prone, clog-prone routines with non-comedogenic suitability. In the clinical study, sebum excretion control improved 29.62% after 2 weeks, supporting a fresher, less greasy feel.
- NON-STICKY, FAST-SINK WATER-GEL FINISH (LAYERS CLEAN) — Quick-absorbing gel-cream texture with a clean finish—100% of subjects agreed it felt soft without stickiness after use. Great under sunscreen and for humid-weather, oily-dehydrated skin.
- SENSITIVE-SKIN SAFE DIRECTION (FRAGRANCE-FREE + VEGAN) — Fragrance-free, vegan Korean skincare designed for sensitive routines. Non-irritant / no sensitisation observed in HRIPT testing (mean score 0.00). Powered with barrier-support helpers like panthenol, squalane, and beta-glucan for comfort-first hydration.
- HOW TO GET THE BEST RESULT (NO-PILLING + DRY-DAY SEAL TIP) — No-Pilling Protocol: Recommend you applying a pea-size on your skin and press the gel cream softly—avoid rubbing too much. Dry-Day Seal: at night, 1-2 layer gel then seal with a light cream or 1–2 drops of oil. Fragrance-free note: a mild natural raw-material scent may be noticeable and fades quickly.
Five unusually quantitative bullets: a +108.63% inner hydration and +106.52% deep soothing figure after one use, a 29.62% sebum excretion improvement after two weeks, a claim that 100% of subjects found it non-sticky, and an HRIPT result of 0.00 mean irritation score. Two of the five are usage instructions rather than claims - a no-pilling protocol (press, do not rub) and a dry-day seal step - and one is a disclosure: the brand states that a mild natural raw-material scent may be noticeable and fades quickly, which is a more honest sentence than most fragrance-free listings contain.
From the manufacturer
The manufacturer block is thin here. It carries a routine table across five products, and in that table this cream's price cell is an em dash while four sibling products show $17.99, $18.98, $18.00 and $21.50. The table also records 4.5 stars from 8,834 ratings for this SKU, the same figure the listing displays. There is no A+ editorial, no ingredient story beyond the 77% headline, and no usage video - the page leans on the clinical bullet numbers rather than on brand narrative.
Part two
4.5 stars where the weakest theme is the one the packaging leads with
The listing carries 4.5 out of 5 across 8,834 ratings, and the distribution is not the binary shape a cult Korean moisturizer usually produces - it has a real middle, and a one-star tail larger than the two-star one. The aspect counters then locate the argument precisely: this product is loved for being light and is contested on the two things a gel is supposed to get right - whether it feels greasy, and whether it suits the skin it lands on.
Share of ratings by star bucket, as published on the listing.
75% five-star, 11% four-star, 6% three-star, 3% two-star, 5% one-star. Unlike most listings in this category, the middle is populated: 6% at three stars is roughly 530 ratings, and 3% at two stars about 265. The one-star tail at 5% is around 440 ratings, nearly double the two-star bucket, which means the dissatisfied minority is not merely lukewarm - it rejects the product outright. A distribution with a filled middle and a heavy bottom usually indicates a texture or compatibility problem rather than a performance problem, and the aspect counters below bear that out.
What buyers actually argue about
Eight themes, 2,654 mentions, and a 40-point spread between the strongest and the weakest. The strongest is not the one the packaging sells; the weakest is.
Share of positive mentions per theme, with mention volume.
| Theme | Mentions | Positive | Negative | Positive share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| effectiveness | 615 | 518 | 97 | 84% |
| skin compatibility | 615 | 414 | 201 | 67% |
| moisturizing | 517 | 384 | 133 | 74% |
| texture | 245 | 194 | 51 | 79% |
| lightweight | 227 | 216 | 11 | 95% |
| non-greasy | 193 | 106 | 87 | 55% |
| value for money | 132 | 104 | 28 | 79% |
| fragrance-free | 110 | 81 | 29 | 74% |
Lightweight at 95% on 227 mentions is the product's real signature - near-unanimous, and consistent with a 77%-water gel. Effectiveness at 84% on 615 and texture at 79% on 245 hold up. The two soft spots are structural. Non-greasy at 55% on 193 mentions is the single worst theme, with 87 negative mentions, on a product whose fifth bullet promises a non-sticky, fast-sink finish - that is a direct contradiction between the page's promise and its own review data. Skin compatibility at 67% on 615 mentions carries 203 negatives, the largest absolute complaint count in the set, and Amazon's summary says plainly that some buyers report breakouts.
Customers find this moisturizer effective, describing it as the best they've used, and appreciate its hydrating properties, particularly for dry skin. The texture receives positive feedback for being light and smooth, and customers consider it a good value for money, with one noting it's worth the price for how long it lasts. The fragrance-free formula and non-greasy feel are also valued, though opinions about skin compatibility are mixed, with some finding it gentle while others report breakouts.
Amazon's synthesis names both sides without resolving them: effective, hydrating, light, good value, fragrance-free - and mixed on compatibility, with breakouts reported. The breakouts sit awkwardly against a claim sheet where pore-clogger-free and fungal-acne-safe both pass, which is a reminder that the badges screen ingredients against lists, not finished products against faces. The botanical base is the plausible variable: 77% oat seed water is a fermented-adjacent plant material, and plant-derived substrates are a common source of individual reactions that no pore-clogger list captures. That is inference, and it is labelled as such.
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 in this part of the report comes from Amazon's own aggregates - the histogram, the aspect counters and the Customers say summary - which publish independently of the review bodies. No buyer is quoted and no review is paraphrased.
Part three
Twelve badges pass, and not one row rises above Level 1
Skinsort returned the complete 17-row declaration, with its comedogenic and irritancy columns. COSDNA returned nothing - both the desktop and mobile endpoints served a Cloudflare interstitial, twice, and the channel was abandoned rather than retried. So the level column below is Skinsort's scale alone. In this formula that produces an unusual result: five rows are rated, all five land at Level 1, and the remaining twelve carry no rating at all.
Level by level
Ingredient rows by level, after merging the two ingredient channels.
| Level | Rule | Rows | Share of formula |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | 0-1 rated | 5 | 29% |
| Unrated | no numeric rating | 12 | 71% |
| Total | 17 | 100% |
Five rows at Level 1, zero at Level 2, zero at Level 3, twelve unrated. Butylene glycol (1), glycerin (0), squalane (1), carbomer (1) and panthenol (0) are the entire numeric record. There is no flagged row anywhere in this formula - nothing at 2, nothing at 3, nothing at 4 - which is rare enough to be the headline finding of this section rather than a footnote. The counterweight is the twelve unrated rows, 71% of the formula, including the 77% oat water itself, which no patch-test literature covers. A clean sheet here means no ingredient in this list appears on a comedogenicity chart at a concerning value; it does not mean the finished product was tested on anyone.
The same list by function
Ingredient rows grouped by the job they do in this formula.
| Function group | Rows | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Humectants & polyols | 3 | 18% |
| Soothing actives | 3 | 18% |
| Emulsifiers & surfactants | 2 | 12% |
| Preservation & chelation | 2 | 12% |
| Rheology & stabilisers | 2 | 12% |
| Antioxidants | 1 | 6% |
| Emollients & lipids | 1 | 6% |
| Oat water base | 1 | 6% |
| Solvents & carriers | 1 | 6% |
| pH & buffering | 1 | 6% |
The groups are small and unusually even: three humectant polyols, three soothing actives (panthenol, beta-glucan, dipotassium glycyrrhizate), two preservation-adjacent rows, two rheology modifiers, two emulsifier-surfactants, and then one each of oat water base, water, squalane, hydroxyacetophenone and tromethamine. There is no fatty alcohol, no fatty acid, no silicone, no fragrance and no classic preservative - the formula is a water gel held together by a taurate copolymer and a biosurfactant, preserved by a hexanediol-glycol system. That is what gives it a 17-row list where a barrier cream needs 45.
What is inside: the claim matrix
Skinsort checks twelve badges. All twelve pass - and for this formula the passes are not decorative, because the rows that usually break them are simply absent.
| Claim | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Alcohol-free | YES | no denatured alcohol or drying alcohol in the list |
| EU-allergen-free | YES | none of the 26 fragrance allergens of Regulation 1223/2009 |
| Fragrance-free | YES | no fragrance ingredients found |
| Oil-free | YES | no triglyceride oils; the lipid row is squalane, a hydrogenated triterpene |
| Paraben-free | YES | preservation runs on 1,2-hexanediol, hydroxyacetophenone and ethylhexylglycerin |
| Silicone-free | YES | no dimethicone or any other siloxane |
| Sulfate-free | YES | no SLS, SLES or the anionic sulfate family |
| Cruelty-free | YES | self-reported by the brand, with no third-party certification on file |
| Fungal-acne-safe | YES | no potential malassezia triggers found |
| Pore-clogger-free | YES | no ingredient on the current pore-clogger list |
| Reef-safe | YES | nothing flagged against the Guam reef restrictions |
| Vegan | YES | no honey, beeswax, lanolin, collagen or other animal-derived row |
Two of the twelve deserve a caveat rather than a tick. Oil-free passes because there is no triglyceride oil, but squalane at row 8 is a lipid, and Skinsort itself notes that the term is unregulated and defined differently by every brand. Cruelty-free passes on the brand's own statement, with no Leaping Bunny or PETA certification in the record - while the vegan badge, by contrast, is backed by the V-Label seal printed on the second carousel frame. One claim has third-party paper behind it, the other does not, and both are shown as passed. Fungal-acne-safe and pore-clogger-free are the two that matter most for a product marketed to blemish-prone skin, and both hold: nothing in these seventeen rows appears on either list.
The complete ingredient list
Seventeen rows in INCI order. The two rating columns are transcribed from Skinsort exactly as published; a dash means the database carries no value for that row, not that the row scored zero. Level is derived from the higher of the two ratings, which is why nine of the ten rows with no rating appear as unrated rather than as low risk.
| # | Ingredient | Function (CosIng) | Group | Comedogenic | Irritancy | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Avena Sativa Seed Water | Solvent, skin conditioning | Oat water base | - | - | Unrated |
| 2 | Butylene Glycol | Humectant, masking, skin conditioning | Humectants & polyols | 1 | 0 | Level 1 |
| 3 | Glycerin | Humectant, skin conditioning, skin protecting | Humectants & polyols | 0 | 0 | Level 1 |
| 4 | 2,3-Butanediol | Humectant, masking, skin conditioning | Humectants & polyols | - | - | Unrated |
| 5 | 1,2-Hexanediol | Skin conditioning, solvent | Preservation & chelation | - | - | Unrated |
| 6 | Water | Skin conditioning, solvent | Solvents & carriers | - | - | Unrated |
| 7 | Ammonium Acryloyldimethyltaurate/VP Copolymer | Film forming, viscosity controlling | Rheology & stabilisers | - | - | Unrated |
| 8 | Squalane | Emollient, skin conditioning | Emollients & lipids | 1 | 0 | Level 1 |
| 9 | Hydroxyacetophenone | Antioxidant | Antioxidants | - | - | Unrated |
| 10 | Carbomer | Emulsion stabilising, gel forming | Rheology & stabilisers | 1 | 0 | Level 1 |
| 11 | Dipotassium Glycyrrhizate | Humectant, skin conditioning | Soothing actives | - | - | Unrated |
| 12 | Panthenol | Skin conditioning | Soothing actives | 0 | 0 | Level 1 |
| 13 | Tromethamine | Buffering, masking | pH & buffering | - | - | Unrated |
| 14 | Ethylhexylglycerin | Skin conditioning | Preservation & chelation | - | - | Unrated |
| 15 | Inulin Lauryl Carbamate | Emulsion stabilising, surfactant | Emulsifiers & surfactants | - | - | Unrated |
| 16 | Sodium Surfactin | Cleansing, emulsifying, gel forming | Emulsifiers & surfactants | - | - | Unrated |
| 17 | Beta-Glucan | Skin conditioning | Soothing actives | - | - | Unrated |
Declared order, unbroken
Avena Sativa Seed Water, Butylene Glycol, Glycerin, 2,3-Butanediol, 1,2-Hexanediol, Water, Ammonium Acryloyldimethyltaurate/VP Copolymer, Squalane, Hydroxyacetophenone, Carbomer, Dipotassium Glycyrrhizate, Panthenol, Tromethamine, Ethylhexylglycerin, Inulin Lauryl Carbamate, Sodium Surfactin, Beta-Glucan
Readings that matter more than the list
- One row is 77% of the product. Avena Sativa Seed Water occupies position 1 at three-quarters of the formula by the brand's own declaration, which makes every other row a supporting player at a combined 23%. The list is short because the formula is, not because it was edited for the page.
- The soothing story is carried by three rows, not by the oat water alone. Panthenol, beta-glucan and dipotassium glycyrrhizate are the anti-redness mechanism; the oat water is the vehicle that delivers them at 77%.
- There is no classic preservative. 1,2-hexanediol, hydroxyacetophenone and ethylhexylglycerin form a hurdle system rather than a single preservative, which is why Paraben-free passes without a substitute being named.
- Sodium Surfactin is the unusual row. A biosurfactant used as emulsifier and gel former at position 16, with no description in the database yet - the only row in the list the source could not characterise.
- Squalane is the one lipid, and it is unrated-adjacent. It carries a comedogenic rating of 1 and an irritancy of 0, which is as clean as a lipid gets, and it is the reason the product can be called oil-free while still containing an emollient.
- Twelve unrated rows is the honest limit of this table. The 77% oat water, three polyols, the copolymer, the biosurfactant and the beta-glucan are all outside the rated set. Nothing flags them, and nothing clears them either.
Part four
The buy box is empty, and the last offer standing asks more than list
There is no live price on this listing. The page renders Currently unavailable, the buy box container is present but empty, and there is no add-to-cart control. The price tracker corroborates it independently: it publishes a low, a high and an average for the Amazon channel and no current value at all. The only live offer in the record is a marketplace seller at $20.00, dated one day before this capture.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Live buy-box price | none - listing renders Currently unavailable |
| List price | $19.50 |
| Discount vs list | not applicable - no live price |
| Unit price | not published while unavailable |
| Subscribe & Save | not offered while unavailable |
| Last Amazon observation | no current value in the record |
| Third-party offer | $20.00 (31 October 2026) |
| Monitoring start | Aug 25, 2021 |
The price history table, as published
| Price type | Lowest ever | Highest ever | Current | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon | $13.20 (Aug 04, 2025) | $18.99 (Jan 13, 2025) | - | $16.68 |
| 3rd Party New | $11.92 (May 08, 2023) | $24.99 (Feb 25, 2024) | $20.00 (Oct 31, 2026) | $16.05 |
| 3rd Party Used | - | - | - | - |
The four numbers, side by side
Lowest ever, highest ever, current and average for each channel that carries data.
Dated observations
The tracker has watched this ASIN since 25 August 2021, and across five years it has five dated observations to show - two from the Amazon channel, three from the marketplace. The Amazon series stops before the present, which is the price equivalent of the missing buy box.
Every dated observation the free record exposes, plotted in order.
Amazon: $18.99 on 13 January 2025, $13.20 on 4 August 2025. 3rd Party New: $11.92 on 8 May 2023, $24.99 on 25 February 2024, $20.00 on 31 October 2026. Read across channels, the shape is a product that has been repriced downward on the buy box through 2025 and then gone quiet, while the marketplace series runs the other way - from a $24.99 spike in early 2024 down to $11.92, and back up to $20.00 now. The two channels never overlap in the record, so there is no moment where Amazon and a third party competed on price.
No price means no discount, and none is claimed. The page shows no strikethrough, no savings figure and no coupon. Reporting a percentage here would require inventing a baseline, so the report carries the list price as a reference and stops there.
The surviving offer is above list. $20.00 against a $19.50 suggested retail is a 2.6% premium; against the $16.05 third-party average it is 24.6%; against the $11.92 floor of May 2023 it is 40.3%. Three comparisons, one direction: this is the most expensive this product has been on the marketplace since the February 2024 spike.
A single seller holding the only stock explains the premium, and the rank explains the demand. The product still ranks 24th in Face Moisturizers while unavailable. A bestseller with no buy box and one marketplace offer is the textbook condition for a scarcity price, and $20.00 reads as exactly that.
The last Amazon price was $13.20, seven months before this capture. If the item restocks, the reference point is not the $20.00 ask but the $13.20 low and the $16.68 average - which means the marketplace offer is running at roughly a 50% premium to where Amazon last priced it.
Nothing here predicts a restock. No source in this record publishes a date, a quantity or a discontinuation notice, and the honest reading of an empty buy box on a 2021 listing is simply that it is empty today.
Part five
Method, confidence, and the three questions this report cannot answer
Every figure is a single reading 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, nothing is converted, and the missing price is reported as missing rather than reconstructed from a sibling channel.
| Element | Confidence | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Availability status | High | Empty buy box and no add-to-cart control on the rendered page, corroborated by the tracker's blank Amazon current price |
| Third-party offer price | High | Dated 31 October 2026, one day before collection |
| 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, 17 rows | High | Skinsort returns the complete declaration in INCI order |
| Comedogenic and irritancy ratings | Medium | Published for 5 of 17 rows only |
| Level classification | Medium | Derived by the stated rule; 12 of 17 rows are unrated |
| Price history extremes | High | Transcribed verbatim with their dates |
What this report cannot settle
- There is no live price, so no discount, saving or unit cost can be stated. The $20.00 marketplace ask is the only current figure and is reported as such.
- No review text was readable, so nothing here reflects what an individual buyer wrote. The aspect counters are counts of mentions, not quotations.
- One ingredient channel was blocked. COSDNA served a Cloudflare interstitial on both endpoints, twice, so there is no second opinion on any rating and no independent check on the 17-row count.
- The ratings cover five of seventeen rows. A clean claim sheet and a clean rating table are different kinds of evidence, and the report keeps them apart.
Snapshot, 1 November 2026. A seventeen-row water gel with all twelve badges intact, no row above Level 1, a rating profile that likes the texture and argues about compatibility, and a buy box that has been empty long enough for the marketplace to price above list.