Free Shipping Over $35 · Family-Founded · Simple Ingredients We All Know
They score how likely an oil is to clog pores, from 0 to 5 — a genuinely useful starting point, but a rough guide, not a guarantee. Here's when the numbers genuinely matter, and when they don't matter much at all.
Comedogenic ratings — which score how likely an oil is to clog pores on a 0–5 scale — do matter as a starting point, but not as an absolute rule. For acne-prone facial skin, knowing that coconut oil rates high (~4) and olive oil lower (~2) is genuinely useful. But the ratings come from imperfect lab studies, they don’t account for the finished product or your individual skin, and “non-comedogenic” isn’t a regulated term. So use them to steer your choices — then patch-test, because your skin has the final say.
If you’ve shopped for facial oils, you’ve probably run into “comedogenic ratings” — numbers that claim to tell you how likely an oil is to clog your pores. So do they actually matter for your skin, or are they just repeated internet folklore?
The honest answer: they matter as a useful starting point, but they’re a rough guide, not gospel. They’re genuinely helpful for narrowing choices, especially if you’re acne-prone and choosing something for your face. But they come from imperfect studies, they can’t account for the finished product or your individual skin, and the related label term “non-comedogenic” isn’t even regulated.
This guide explains where the ratings come from, why they’re imperfect, when they matter most, and how to actually use them — without either dismissing them outright or treating a number as the final, unarguable word. For a real-world comparison, see coconut oil vs olive oil for skin. The goal here isn’t to make you distrust the ratings or to treat them as sacred — it’s to give you the honest middle ground, so a number helps you decide instead of scaring you off a perfectly good oil.
A comedogenic rating scores how likely an ingredient (usually an oil or butter) is to clog pores, on a scale from 0 (won’t clog pores) to 5 (very likely to clog). Lower is “safer” for pore-clogging; higher means more caution for pore-prone skin. Most everyday skincare oils land somewhere between 0 and 4, so in practice you’re usually comparing a handful of familiar options rather than sifting the whole scale.
The word itself comes from “comedo” — the technical term for a clogged pore (a blackhead or whitehead). So a “highly comedogenic” oil is one that’s more likely to contribute to those clogged pores, at least in theory and for pore-prone skin. The scale gives people, especially those with acne-prone skin, a quick way to compare oils before putting them on their face. It’s a sensible idea — the catch is in how the numbers are made and used. Think of it a bit like a spiciness rating on a menu: a genuinely useful heads-up that lets you choose well, but not a precise measurement, and never a substitute for actually tasting the dish yourself.
Here’s the part that explains why the ratings are imperfect: many of them originate from older lab and animal-model studies (historically, tests on rabbit ears), plus later human-skin research.
Those early models don’t perfectly match real human facial skin, and testing a pure, concentrated ingredient in a lab isn’t the same as using a finished product in real life. So a comedogenic number is a reasonable estimate — not a precise, guaranteed prediction for your face.
None of this means the ratings are useless — they capture a real tendency, and the broad strokes (coconut oil higher, olive oil lower) hold up in many people’s experience, which is exactly why the ratings survived long enough to become common knowledge in the first place. It just means you should hold the numbers loosely: a helpful signal, not a hard rule. It also explains why you’ll find slightly different numbers for the same oil in different places — the underlying research isn’t perfectly consistent, so treat the ratings as a range and a direction rather than a single exact figure carved in stone.
Three big reasons a single comedogenic number can’t tell the whole story:
So two products can both contain a “4”-rated oil and behave completely differently on your skin. That’s why treating the rating as one input — rather than the verdict — is the smart approach. The people who get frustrated with comedogenic ratings are usually the ones who expected a guarantee from them; the people who find them useful are the ones who treat them as a helpful nudge in the right direction and then check against their own experience.
Here are widely-cited ratings for common skincare oils and butters (remember: rough guide):
| Ingredient | Typical rating | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Argan / hemp seed | 0 | Very low |
| Shea butter | 0–2 | Low |
| Olive oil | ~2 | Lower |
| Beef tallow | Widely considered low | Skin-compatible fat |
| Coconut oil | ~4 | Fairly high |
| Cocoa butter | ~4 | Higher |
Notice coconut oil’s ~4 — it’s the classic example of a beloved oil that rates high. That doesn’t make it bad (it’s lovely on the body and hair); it’s just why some people are cautious using it on acne-prone faces. More in is coconut oil good for your skin?
Since we’re talking pores, one important label note: “non-comedogenic” is not a regulated term.
There’s no legal definition or required test for “non-comedogenic” in cosmetics. A brand can use it based on its own formulating or testing — or fairly loosely. It suggests “formulated to be less pore-clogging,” but there’s no guarantee behind the words.
So treat “non-comedogenic” like “clean” or “natural” — a marketing suggestion, not a promise you can bank on. The reliable move is the same as always: read the actual ingredients and patch-test on your own skin. For more on decoding claims, see our ingredient guides.
Comedogenic ratings aren’t equally relevant to everyone. They matter most if:
If you have resilient skin that doesn’t break out, or you’re using oils on your body and hair, the ratings matter far less — you can enjoy even higher-rated oils like coconut freely. The scale is really a tool for pore-prone facial skin; for everyone else, it’s good-to-know context, not a constraint. It’s worth saying plainly, because a lot of people with perfectly happy skin talk themselves out of lovely, affordable oils over a number that was never really aimed at them.
This is worth its own point because it resolves a lot of confusion:
So the same oil can be “use with caution” on your face and “enjoy freely” on your body. When you see a scary comedogenic number, ask where you’re using it before you rule it out — the answer often turns a “no” into a cheerful “yes, just not on my face.”
Here’s the honest hierarchy: your own skin’s response beats any rating. A comedogenic number is a prediction; a patch test is evidence. And evidence from your own skin always outranks a prediction made in a lab decades ago on tissue that wasn’t even yours.
Apply a small amount of the product to a discreet spot (like the jaw or inner arm) for a few days and watch how your skin responds. If it’s happy, the rating mattered less than the real result. If it breaks you out, you’ve learned something no number could tell you, and you’ve saved yourself from a whole jar of regret and a week of breakouts.
This is why we say “rating, then patch-test” rather than “rating, full stop.” Use the number to choose what to try; let your skin make the final call. Skin is genuinely individual — there are people who break out from famously “safe” low-rated oils and people who wear high-rated coconut oil on their face with no trouble at all. No chart can predict which one you are; only a few days of patch-testing can. For persistent acne or breakouts, a dermatologist is the right resource — comedogenic ratings are about product choice, not treating a skin condition, and a good dermatologist can help far more than any oil chart when breakouts are persistent.
Putting it all together, here’s the practical way to use comedogenic ratings:
Used this way, the ratings are a helpful filter that saves you trial and error — without becoming a rigid rulebook that makes you fear a perfectly good oil. That balance — informed but not anxious — is the whole point, and it’s how we’d want a friend to shop, too.
In the spirit of honesty we bring to every ingredient, here’s where our two hero oils land:
Coconut oil rates around 4 — fairly high — which we’ll always tell you plainly. That’s exactly why we don’t pretend coconut oil is perfect for every single face; it’s wonderful on the body, hair, and many people’s skin, but acne-prone faces should patch-test. Beef tallow is widely considered low-comedogenic and is often chosen as a skin-compatible fat, which is part of why we love it for facial use — though, as always, individual skin varies and a quick patch test is always wise before you commit. We’d rather give you the real numbers and let you choose than oversell either one — partly because it’s honest, and partly because a customer who knows exactly what they’re getting is a happier customer than one sold a promise that doesn’t hold up on their skin. See beef tallow vs coconut oil for the full comparison.
Three quick clarifications:
Hold onto the balanced view: comedogenic ratings are a genuinely useful tool, used loosely, in context, and paired with a simple patch test — not a precise verdict to obey or a myth to dismiss.
Comedogenic ratings do matter — as a helpful starting point, especially for acne-prone facial skin choosing oils. They tell you a real tendency (coconut ~4, olive ~2, tallow low), which can save you real time, money, and trial and error. But they come from imperfect studies, they don’t account for the finished product or your individual skin, and “non-comedogenic” isn’t regulated — so they’re a guide, not gospel.
Use the number to steer, then let your own skin decide with a simple patch test. That balanced approach beats both blind obedience and dismissal. If you want simple, honestly-described oils — including low-comedogenic tallow — explore our tallow line and coconut line.
Megan co-founded Bear Basics and leads design. As a mom, she writes our gentlest, most practical guides — on ingredients, sourcing, and simple family skincare — with an emphasis on honest, well-sourced, and simple. Read the full story →