PFAS in Makeup, Which Brands Grade Best and Worst

Based on available materials and public disclosure data, most mainstream foundation lines reviewed for this guide land in the "Excellent" tier, with one notable exception. Lancôme Lancome Teint Idole Ultra Wear Foundation is the clear outlier in our database, scoring a Poor rating (30/100) while its own sibling product Lancôme Lancome Teint Idole Ultra Wear Care & Glow Foundation, scores Excellent (75/100). That gap inside a single product family is the headline finding of this guide.

The strongest overall performers based on the materials and disclosures we reviewed are the Clinique Even Better line and the Rimmel Lasting Finish family, both of which cluster at 75/100 across multiple SKUs. No product in this guide has been lab-verified as free of PFAS by a third party; grades here reflect our model-based estimate from formulation disclosures and ingredient transparency, not certified lab testing. Readers who want a wider comparison set can browse the full makeup finder or the dedicated foundation and primer finder.

Summary Comparison

Product	PFAS Grade (Model Estimate)	Verdict
Clinique Clinique Even Better Makeup	Excellent, 75/100	Lower concern based on reviewed disclosures
Clinique Even Better Clinical Serum Foundation SPF 25	Excellent, 75/100	Lower concern based on reviewed disclosures
Clinique Clinique Superbalanced Makeup	Excellent, 75/100	Lower concern based on reviewed disclosures
Clinique Even Better Clinical SPF 45 Foundation	Excellent, 75/100	Lower concern based on reviewed disclosures
Rimmel Rimmel Stay Matte Foundation	Excellent, 75/100	Lower concern based on reviewed disclosures
Rimmel London Lasting Finish Foundation	Excellent, 75/100	Lower concern based on reviewed disclosures
Rimmel Rimmel Stay Matte Liquid Foundation	Excellent, 75/100	Lower concern based on reviewed disclosures
Rimmel Rimmel Lasting Finish Foundation	Excellent, 75/100	Lower concern based on reviewed disclosures
Elizabeth Arden Intervene Makeup SPF 15	Excellent, 75/100	Lower concern based on reviewed disclosures
Lancôme Renergie Lift Makeup Foundation SPF 27	Excellent, 75/100	Lower concern based on reviewed disclosures
Lancôme Teint Idole Ultra Wear Care & Glow Foundation	Excellent, 75/100	Lower concern based on reviewed disclosures
Lancôme Dual Finish Powder Foundation	Excellent, 75/100	Lower concern based on reviewed disclosures
Lancôme Teint Idole Ultra Wear Foundation	Poor, 30/100	Higher concern, avoid if minimizing PFAS exposure is a priority

Why PFAS Turns Up in Makeup at All

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are sometimes used in cosmetics to create long-wear, waterproof, or smooth-glide textures. In foundation, they can show up as film-formers or slip agents that give a product its "stay-put" feel. This same chemistry is why waterproof mascara is one of the highest-risk categories in cosmetics generally. Long-wear foundations, which are engineered to resist transfer and sweat, carry a similar structural incentive to use PFAS-adjacent ingredients, which may help explain some of the variation seen in this dataset.

It's worth stating plainly, association is not causation. A product scoring lower on our model does not mean a confirmed health outcome has been demonstrated for that specific formula. Our grades reflect estimated PFAS-related risk based on disclosed ingredients, formulation category, and public data patterns, not a clinical or epidemiological finding.

Clinique Even Better Line, Grade Excellent

Four separate SKUs from Clinique's Even Better range appear in our database, and all four land at 75/100, Clinique Even Better Makeup Even Better Clinical Serum Foundation SPF 25 Even Better Clinical SPF 45 Foundation, and the related Superbalanced Makeup.

Materials and brand claims, Clinique markets these formulas around dermatologist testing and "allergy tested" labeling, which is a brand-stated claim rather than a third-party PFAS certification. We found no evidence of PFAS in the reviewed sources for these products.

Pros, Consistent scoring across the entire product line suggests a stable formulation approach rather than a one-off result. SPF variants retain the same grade, which is notable since sunscreen actives sometimes introduce additional flagged ingredients.

Cons, A 75/100 is "Excellent" in our grading band but is not a perfect score, and it is not a certification of zero PFAS content. Consumers with zero-tolerance preferences should still review full ingredient lists themselves.

Rimmel Lasting Finish and Stay Matte Lines, Grade Excellent

Rimmel's budget-friendly staples also cluster at 75/100, Rimmel Stay Matte Foundation Stay Matte Liquid Foundation Rimmel London Lasting Finish Foundation, and Rimmel Lasting Finish Foundation.

Materials and brand claims, Rimmel positions these as affordable, long-wear drugstore formulas. The brand does not make an explicit PFAS-free marketing claim on these specific SKUs in the materials we reviewed, but the underlying disclosed ingredients did not surface PFAS flags in our model.

Pros, This is a rare case where a lower-priced mass-market line scores identically to prestige brands, suggesting price point alone is not a reliable predictor of PFAS-related concern.

Cons, Multiple near-identical SKUs (Stay Matte vs. Stay Matte Liquid, Lasting Finish vs. Rimmel London Lasting Finish) can make it hard for shoppers to know which exact formula they're buying in-store; always check the product name against the specific graded listing.

Elizabeth Arden Intervene Makeup SPF 15, Grade Excellent

Materials and brand claims, Elizabeth Arden Intervene Makeup SPF 15 is marketed as an anti-aging, skincare-forward makeup with built-in sun protection. As with the others, this is a brand-stated positioning, not an independently verified PFAS-free claim.

Pros, Scores at the same 75/100 tier as the prestige and drugstore lines above, reinforcing a pattern of consistent scoring across the "Excellent" band regardless of brand category.

Cons, SPF-inclusive formulas can vary batch to batch depending on the UV filter system used; our score reflects the specific disclosed formulation reviewed, not every reformulation the product may undergo over time.

Lancôme, a Line Split Down the Middle

Lancôme is the most instructive case study in this guide because its own portfolio spans both ends of our grading scale. Lancôme Renergie Lift Makeup Foundation SPF 27 Teint Idole Ultra Wear Care & Glow Foundation, and Dual Finish Powder Foundation all score Excellent at 75/100. But Lancôme Teint Idole Ultra Wear Foundation, the original long-wear formula in the same naming family as the "Care & Glow" version, scores Poor at 30/100.

Materials and brand claims, Lancôme markets the original Teint Idole Ultra Wear as a 24-hour, transfer-resistant foundation, which is precisely the performance category most associated with PFAS-adjacent film-forming ingredients. The "Care & Glow" line extension appears to use a different underlying formulation approach, which likely explains the score gap, though we are describing a model-based estimate from disclosed materials, not a confirmed reformulation history from the brand.

Pros of the higher-scoring Lancôme SKUs, Shoppers who want the Lancôme name and finish quality without the lowest-scoring formula have viable alternatives within the same brand.

Cons of Teint Idole Ultra Wear (original), This is the one product in our entire dataset for this guide that lands in the Poor tier. Its long-wear, transfer-resistant positioning is the kind of performance claim that historically correlates with higher PFAS-related risk in our model. Shoppers focused on minimizing exposure should treat this specific SKU differently from the rest of the Lancôme range, and should not assume that a strong score for one Lancôme product extends to another.

What to Avoid

• Do not assume brand reputation is a stand-in for a specific product's grade. Lancôme's split result shows that a single brand can carry both an Excellent and a Poor product simultaneously.
• Be cautious with "24-hour," "transfer-resistant," or "waterproof" makeup claims. These performance categories, similar to what we see across waterproof mascara, are structurally more likely to rely on PFAS-adjacent film formers.
• Don't confuse a brand's marketing language with third-party verification. None of the "Excellent" grades in this guide represent a certified lab test confirming zero PFAS; they reflect our model-based estimate from disclosed ingredients and public data.
• Watch for near-duplicate product names. "Lasting Finish" vs. "Rimmel London Lasting Finish," or "Teint Idole Ultra Wear" vs. "Teint Idole Ultra Wear Care & Glow," are different graded entries with different scores. Always match the exact product name.
• Don't stop at foundation. If PFAS exposure from routine products is a concern, it's worth reviewing adjacent categories like sunscreen deodorant, and shampoo, where similar formulation incentives exist.

Our Pick

Based on available materials and data reviewed for this guide, the Clinique Even Better Makeup line and the Rimmel Lasting Finish Foundation represent the strongest combination of consistency and lower estimated concern in this dataset, each scoring 75/100 across multiple related SKUs. Neither should be described as PFAS-free or certified safe; both simply carry no evidence of PFAS in the reviewed sources and the highest grade band available in our model.

The product to treat with the most caution is Lancôme Teint Idole Ultra Wear Foundation, the only Poor-graded item in this guide. Shoppers who like the Lancôme brand but want a lower-concern option within the same house can consider the Care & Glow version or the Dual Finish Powder Foundation instead, both of which score Excellent in our reviewed data. For a broader side-by-side of graded products beyond this list, use the makeup finder or narrow specifically to foundation and primer options.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a high PFAS grade mean a makeup product is completely free of PFAS?

No. A high grade such as the 75/100 "Excellent" scores seen across the Clinique, Rimmel, Elizabeth Arden, and most Lancôme products in this guide reflects our model-based estimate from disclosed materials and public data, not a certified lab test. The correct framing is "no evidence of PFAS found in reviewed sources," not "PFAS-free" or "safe."

Why do two products from the same brand, like Lancôme, get such different grades?

Different products within one brand can use entirely different formulation approaches. In this dataset Lancôme Teint Idole Ultra Wear Foundation scores Poor (30/100) while its sibling Teint Idole Ultra Wear Care & Glow Foundation, scores Excellent (75/100). This likely reflects distinct ingredient decisions between the two formulas, though we're describing an estimate based on available materials rather than a confirmed brand reformulation record.

Is there a health risk from using a lower-graded foundation?

Our grading reflects estimated PFAS-related concern based on formulation and disclosure data, not a clinical health determination. Any broader health associations tied to PFAS exposure in scientific literature reflect association, not proven causation, for any single consumer product. Readers with specific health concerns should consult a medical professional and review full ingredient disclosures directly from the brand.