PFAS in Deodorant, Which Brands Grade Best and Worst

Based on available materials and public disclosure data, deodorant brands split sharply into two camps, clean-formulation lines that show no evidence of PFAS in reviewed sources, and legacy antiperspirant brands whose aerosol and gel formats carry a documented history of fluorochemical use in packaging or formulation. Our model-based estimates currently put Lume Unscented Invisible Cream Deodorant Tube and the entire Tom's of Maine lineup at the top of the field, each scoring 100/100 in our estimate.

That top tier isn't a single winner so much as a cluster, Lavanila Puracy, and Crystal Deodorant Stick all land at the same 100/100 estimate. At the other end Secret Outlast Clear Gel Deodorant is the clear laggard in our database, scoring just 30/100. Secret's solid antiperspirant sticks fall in the middle, at 65/100. If you're shopping the deodorant aisle with PFAS on your mind, this guide breaks down why, and what the tradeoffs actually are.

Summary Comparison

Product	PFAS Grade (Model Estimate)	Verdict
Lume Unscented Invisible Cream Deodorant Tube	Excellent (100/100)	Lower concern based on reviewed materials
Tom's of Maine Deodorant (and full line)	Excellent (100/100)	Lower concern based on reviewed materials
Lavanila The Healthy Deodorant Vanilla	Excellent (100/100)	Lower concern based on reviewed materials
Puracy Deodorant Cream 2oz Glass	Excellent (100/100)	Lower concern based on reviewed materials
Crystal Deodorant Stick	Excellent (100/100)	Lower concern based on reviewed materials
Secret Clinical Strength Invisible Solid	Good (65/100)	Moderate concern, some flagged inputs
Secret Antiperspirant/Deodorant Invisible Solid	Good (65/100)	Moderate concern, some flagged inputs
Secret Outlast Invisible Solid	Good (65/100)	Moderate concern, some flagged inputs
Secret Outlast Clear Gel Deodorant	Poor (30/100)	Highest concern in this comparison

The Excellent-Grade Cluster, What They Have in Common

Lume Unscented Invisible Cream Deodorant Tube

Materials, Lume markets this as a cream-format tube deodorant built around plant-derived odor-control ingredients rather than aluminum salts. Brand claims, Lume states its formulas are free of aluminum, parabens, and baking soda, and the company positions the line as a "clean" deodorant option; this is a brand-stated claim, not an independent lab certification. Pros, No evidence of PFAS found in reviewed sources for this product, invisible on skin and fabric, cream format avoids aerosol propellants. Cons, Cream tubes can feel less familiar to stick-deodorant users, and higher price point than mass-market brands.

Tom's of Maine (full line, including Antiperspirant Deodorant Complete Protection Long Lasting, and Wicked Deodorant)

Materials, Naturally derived ingredient decks across stick, solid, and antiperspirant formats. Brand claims, Tom's of Maine states its products are made "the natural way" with no synthetic fragrances in several lines; again, this is company messaging rather than third-party PFAS verification. Pros, Consistent Excellent-tier estimate across nearly the entire product catalog, including bundle sets like the Gentle Care Bundle, the Most-Loved Deodorant Bundle, and the Back to Nature Bundle; widely available at mainstream retailers. Cons, Some users report shorter odor-control windows compared to antiperspirant-heavy competitors; scent and stickiness vary by formula.

Lavanila The Healthy Deodorant Vanilla

Materials, Vanilla-forward, aluminum-free formula marketed under Lavanila's "healthy" product positioning. Brand claims, Lavanila states the line is formulated without parabens, phthalates, and aluminum. Pros, Excellent-tier model estimate, pleasant scent profile frequently cited by users, straightforward ingredient list. Cons, Premium pricing relative to drugstore deodorants; scent-sensitive users should patch-test.

Puracy Deodorant Cream 2oz Glass

Materials, Cream-format deodorant packaged in glass rather than plastic. Brand claims, Puracy markets the product as biologist-developed and free from synthetic additives. Pros, Excellent-tier estimate, glass packaging avoids some plastic-related coating concerns, small-batch ingredient transparency. Cons, Glass packaging is less travel-friendly and breakable; smaller size than typical stick deodorants.

Crystal Deodorant Stick

Materials, Mineral salt (potassium alum)-based stick, a long-standing "natural deodorant" category staple. Brand claims, Crystal states its mineral formula blocks odor without blocking pores. Pros, Excellent-tier model estimate, minimal ingredient list, budget-friendly relative to boutique clean brands. Cons, Mineral stick deodorants require damp application and don't suit everyone's routine; no antiperspirant effect.

The Middle Tier, Secret's Solid Antiperspirants

Three Secret solid-format products, the Clinical Strength Invisible Solid, the standard Antiperspirant/Deodorant Invisible Solid, and the Outlast Invisible Solid, all land at a Good, 65/100 estimate. Materials, Aluminum-based antiperspirant actives in solid-stick formats. Brand claims, Secret states its antiperspirants meet FDA over-the-counter monograph requirements for sweat reduction; this addresses efficacy claims, not PFAS content, and is not an independent PFAS lab clearance. Pros, Strong, clinically documented sweat control; widely available; solid format (versus aerosol or gel) generally correlates with fewer flagged inputs in our estimate. Cons, Mid-tier score reflects some flagged formulation or packaging inputs identified in our review process; consumers prioritizing the lowest possible PFAS-association risk may prefer the Excellent-tier alternatives above.

What to Avoid

The clearest lesson from this comparison is format-driven, gel and aerosol antiperspirants carry the weakest scores in our database. Secret Outlast Clear Gel Deodorant scores Poor, 30/100, our lowest-graded product in this category. Materials, Clear gel antiperspirant formula with aluminum act