SKIN1004 Azelaic Acid 10% Ampoule: Formula, Ratings and Price Analysis

What the listing publishes about SKIN1004 Azelaic Acid 10% Ampoule: positioning, specification sheet, headline claims and the photography used on the detail page. Everything below is a snapshot of the Amazon US detail page taken on 2026-10-31, with prices read against a US delivery address.

Specification sheet

What the brand claims

Product images

Three listing frames per row, exactly as published on the Amazon detail page.

Real product photos

The listing rendered no buyer-uploaded photo tiles at capture time; the frames below are additional Amazon listing photography rather than customer uploads.

The score and its distribution, then the themes buyers actually write about. Review content is aggregated only: no reviewer name, handle, avatar or profile link is reproduced anywhere in this analysis.

Rating distribution

What buyers talk about

Customers say

Reading the signal

The distribution is top-heavy: 81% of ratings sit at five stars and a further 8% at four, which is the shape of a product that satisfies most first-time buyers. The tail is not noise, though — 6% at one star is a visible minority, and the aspect table shows where the disagreement concentrates: skin irritation is the weakest theme at 65% positive across 17 mentions, while application reaches 100%. Price is not the sticking point here; the weaker reading sits on skin irritation, which is where a buyer deciding on this SKU should look before anything else.

Confidence: high for the aggregate score and histogram (published directly); medium for the aspect split, which is a model-generated summary rather than a vote count and does not sum to the rating total.

Two independent ingredient databases were merged into a single table: COSDNA supplies acne risk, irritant and safety grades, Skinsort supplies position order, function and comedogenic / irritancy ratings. Where both index the same ingredient the rows are fused; where only one does, the gap is shown rather than filled.

Matching outcome: 27 ingredients agreed exactly across both databases, 0 appear only in COSDNA and 0 only in Skinsort. Skinsort's own community read on this formula is 3.8 from 23 reviews at a $$$$ price band — a small sample, useful as a second opinion only.

Ingredient level classification

Every ingredient carrying a COSDNA safety grade is bucketed by it. The scale is inverted: 1 is the safest reading and higher numbers mean more caution is warranted, so the two left-hand bands are the clean ones. Not rated means the database holds no entry, not that the ingredient is harmless.

Function profile

The profile is a classic emulsion serum: a water and solvent base, a small silicone and emollient load for slip, one humectant cluster and a short preservative tail. The actives concentrate in three names — niacinamide, the patented Melasyl molecule (2-mercaptonicotinoyl glycine) and a retinyl ester — which matches the marketing claim rather than contradicting it.

Flagged ingredients

Rows below appear because at least one published grade reaches 3 or higher on acne, irritancy, safety or comedogenicity. A 3-plus safety grade on a fragrance or a preservative is a class-level flag, not a prediction about this formula.

What's inside: claim matrix

Free-from claims are printed exactly as the aggregator grades them. A "NO" is a failing claim, not a neutral reading — the fragrance line in particular is worth reading twice.

Flagged concerns

Key ingredient groups

Benefits the formula supports

Bar length is the number of ingredients the aggregator credits for each benefit; a one-ingredient claim is a weak signal, not a promise.

Complete ingredient table

27 rows in published order. Columns 4 to 6 come from COSDNA, columns 7 and 8 from Skinsort. Blank cells are rendered as not rated.

Reading notes. Acne risk and irritancy are read low-is-safer. Safety is an inverse grade where 1 is the least concerning. Where a source prints a range such as 1-9 the upper bound is used for banding, so an ingredient is never quietly upgraded. Every row on this entry printed a single grade except five rows that carried all three, so a single number is recorded as the safety grade. No two-number row occurred, so no cell required an inferred assignment.

The current ask, the surrounding history, and how the price behaves against its own floor, its average and the list price. All figures are USD as rendered for a US delivery address; nothing here is converted from another currency or estimated.

Price history by channel

The tracker's summary block is all-time by construction: changing the chart window re-scales the line but never re-computes these five values, so no period-specific low or high can be read from it. The last observation in this record is dated 2026-10-30, 1 days before the collection date, and the tracker reports its last scan as “7 hours ago”. Treat the live figure as up to 1 days old rather than as a today quote.

Channel comparison

Four bars per price type — the historic floor, the average, the live price and the historic ceiling. Where a channel has no data the bars collapse to zero and the table above reads as a dash.

Price trend from dated observations

The tracker publishes only the dated extremes and the last observation, not a full observation series, so the line below connects the actual dated points rather than inventing intermediate values. Read it as the shape of the record, not as a daily series.

Derived position

What the price record says

Amazon itself has never held the buy box for this listing in the tracking window — the Amazon row is empty across all four values — so the reference series here is 3rd Party New. Its live value of $17.50 sits -18.6% against an all-time average of $21.50 and +46.0% above the floor of $11.99. The full record spans $13.20, i.e. 110.1% of the floor, which is the pricing latitude a marketplace-only listing actually has.

Because every observation in the record belongs to third-party sellers, the spread is a supply signal rather than a brand-pricing signal: the ceiling of $25.19 was set by whoever was fulfilling at the time, not by a list price. No list price is published for this SKU, so any discount claim can only be measured against the record itself, never against a reference price.

Confidence: high for the transcribed prices and dates, medium for the interpretive paragraphs, which reason from five values per channel rather than from an observation log.

Methodology, scope and confidence