Watch Cosmetic Chemist Guesses Cheap vs. Expensive Mascara | Price Points | Allure

Nov 13, 2024

Released on 11/12/2024

Heavy means expensive.

It costs more money to make the wand for product B.

So that could indicate quality though.

I'm Ramon and I am a cosmetic chemist.

[soft music]

Volumizing mascaras.

So when it comes to a good quality volumizing mascara,

the two main factors we're considering are A,

obviously the formula.

You want a formula that's able to build on itself

to really build the impact of full volume lashes.

But interestingly enough, the other big factor

when it comes to mascara is the brush,

you want a brush that's gonna be able to coat the lashes

and really give the impact of that fuller volume as well.

And when I'm not talking about the impact

of the wand itself, a lot of brands actually have patents

on their mascara wands and specifically in regards to

how the bristles are splayed and shaped.

So we're gonna start by looking at the products.

We're gonna start with product A.

Okay, we're looking at the wand, the shape,

and how the bristles are.

We see the semi like hourglass, very subtle hourglass.

And that's to help make sure that you're able

to get all the lashes across the length of the lash line.

So now let's look at product B, brown mascara again.

Similar shape, but this has a more pronounced hourglass,

specifically on this end it's a little bit more bulbous.

So now let's move on to the applications.

Starting with Product A.

It goes on the lashes really nicely.

The product does deposit.

We're not getting a very dramatic effect.

You're not gonna get the high intensity of a black mascara.

For the most part, it is fanning the lashes out

a little bit and overall you're getting a very clean look.

So now moving on to product B.

You can see with the application we're getting a bit more

product applied to the lash

and we're seeing a lot more of that impact.

We do notice a little bit of clumping,

which that's not a bad thing.

As you can see, we also sort that out very easily.

But that could reflect in that product B is able

to deliver more dramatic volume

by being able to deposit more product.

Something to notice for product B though is

that the lashes weren't initially curled,

but after the three swipes of product B,

there was actually a noticed lift in the lashes.

And that can designates an enhanced

or higher quality film forming ability

and thus hold of the mascara for product B,

which could indicate quality.

So now for the challenge test,

we are swapping out the wands.

We're gonna see if generic spoolies themselves

can still have the same impact on volume and

therefore meaning that the formulas themselves are

potentially of higher quality or not.

So we can see with the left eye, this is the application

with the original wand.

And on the right side that is the application

with the generic spoolie.

Even with the spoolie, we're getting, again,

decent depositing of the mascara,

a really decent moderate volumizing effect with product A.

So overall, we're seeing a decent impact.

We're seeing for Product B though, that potentially due

to the way that the bristles are shaped

and splayed, maybe they were able to hold onto more product

to therefore deposit more product.

So potentially products B in

that regard can give more volume

and thus again, better quality.

We'll see.

So now let's look at the ingredients list for these.

Starting with product A,

we see a pretty long ingredients list.

Water is the first ingredient.

Fun fact mascara are generally emulsions,

meaning that they're mixtures of water

and oil or lipid based substances like waxes.

So right off the top we see different waxes.

We see a lot of copolymers and the waxes and copolymers,

those are the film formers,

you want the waxes to deposit on the lashes,

but also things that help to give the impact

of more volumizing effect as well.

So we're gonna look at product B now

and water first ingredient paraffin, that's a wax.

If you go down a little bit,

you're gonna see VP/Eicosene copolymer.

That's an oil soluble film form

that's not apparent in formula one.

That in itself could be a little indication of quality

just because that helps to improve longevity.

A lot of the film formula we see like general copolymers,

those are more water soluble.

But that VP/Eicosene copolymer,

that's one of the few oil soluble film formers.

Also I see acetyl Hexapeptide-1, peptides are not cheap.

So to put them in a mascara, that's also an indication

of this could be a little bit more high quality.

So based off the application challenge test

and the ingredients list,

I personally think product B is gonna

be the higher quality option.

Let's start with product A first.

And the price is 9.99.

That's actually not a bad price for a mascara,

it's giving drugstore.

But as you can see, this product works really, really well.

And on top of that, if you wanna be replacing

your mascara frequently, which you should be

9.99, you're getting a pretty good effect.

And now product B $29,

to me, that's a pretty good mid-tier mascara.

And that's one of those situations

where if you can afford that, that's great for you.

But again, we saw a really good performance

out of the more affordable option.

So in my opinion, drugstore is where it's at right now.

Tubing mascaras, tubing mascaras compared

to regular mascaras, they feature a higher concentration

of water soluble film formers and polymers.

So when you apply them,

those film formers essentially form a tube

around the individual lashes.

The benefit of that is that it's a better smudge resistance.

They have a better hold on the lash

and also they are less flaky.

And plus they're really easy to remove

because you just need a little bit of water

and pressure and they slide right off.

And if you've got oily eyelids,

tubing mascara could be a really good option for you

because the film formerers in tubing mascaras

are water soluble, not oil soluble,

which means they're gonna stay on your lashes

if you're like mean and you got really oily eyelids.

So let's look at the products starting first with product A.

One thing about tubing mascara

is they have very specific wands.

You can see what this, the bristles are short

and they're very evenly spaced so that you can get basically

around every individual lash

to make sure that they are coated.

And we can see with the tubing wands compared

to the volumizing wands, there's a taper

to the shape and it's straight.

So in my opinion, they're easier to use.

They get those inner corner lashes a lot easier

and they're just more user friendly.

Now onto product B,

let's look at the wands, see what we see.

Same situation with the wand.

Taper, straight bristles, very shorts.

It helps you comb through the lashes,

get those tubes to form.

It just feels heavy.

This is like a metal based tube and applicator,

this is plastic and for me, heavy means expensive.

Now looking at the application tests for product A,

we see when it goes on the lashes, we get a lot of impact.

We do notice a very dramatic effect.

We see volume, we see length, we see drama,

and so that could be an indicator of quality.

For product B, though we're not seeing a lot of drama,

we see it goes on,

and realistically this isn't making claims

that I'm aware of about anything else aside from tubing.

And we're noticing with the application

there's not a big change in length or volume.

So now getting onto the challenge test,

this is the removal test.

We're going to be testing

if the tubing mascara easily comes off.

For this, we're going to be soaking cotton pad in water,

allowing that cotton pad to saturate the lashes

for 30 seconds and then wiping away

to see if the tubes come off like they should.

For product A, again, this was the bold drama lash.

So I was expecting bold drama tubes and we got smudges.

Realistically, it seems like

after the water broke down the polymers,

it just kind of dissolved it into a mush

and wiped it off like that.

We didn't notice tubes, so we actually had

to do a second round just to make sure.

And after soaking it in water, we did a finger test

to see if tubes came off on the finger.

And still it was very smudgy.

So it doesn't seem like product A

formed the tubes like it should have.

And we allowed the product

to sit on the lashes for at least 10 minutes.

So they should have definitely formed by then.

Dunno what that's about.

Could be an indication of quality.

Product B though that was the one on application,

it didn't seem like it was doing a lot.

But after soaking for 30 seconds

and rubbing the lashes, actual tubes were seen

on the cotton pad, which is promising.

It shows that while it wasn't a lot of drama,

the tubes tube like they should have,

product B actually performed the way it was necessary to

in terms of a tubing mascara,

product A was just water soluble.

Overall, I'm still noticing a certain trend in quality,

but we still have to review the ingredients list.

So looking at the ingredients for product A,

obviously water's the first ingredient.

We notice all these VP/Eicosene copolymer,

that's a oil soluble polymer.

We see the normal waxes.

But again, you notice that the waxes are lower

on the ingredients list than the Acrtlates copolymer.

That's the water soluble polymer

that makes tubing mascara tube generally.

Also alcohol denat is very

high up on the ingredients list.

That's basically like ethanol, which some people are like,

I don't want that around my eye area.

That could be a solvent for one of the polymers as well.

Alcohol also helps to solubilize other ingredients.

It's a volatile, so it flashes off very quick.

So the impact on the lash and the eye is minimal to none.

Let's look at product B.

Very similar inky.

We see water, we see the acrylates copolymer.

We see alcohol, first three ingredients.

We see the VP/Eicosene copolymer again.

But if you look down a little bit, you see PVP,

that's another water soluble polymer

that we normally see in tubing mascara.

Product A did not have that.

Very, very similar ingredient stories

for both of them though.

So it's giving sisters but not twins.

So based on the application, the removal test

and the ingredients list, I personally think product B

is gonna be the higher quality product.

Let's find out.

Starting with product A, 12.99.

That's very high low tier, low mid tier.

It's drugstore, I expected it, I'm not surprised.

$26, that's actually not a bad price for a mascara.

This feels heavier to me, It's giving luxury.

I told you it weighed a little bit more

and that heft just means luxury to me.

And while the impact on the lash wasn't crazy,

it tubed like it was supposed to.

This is one of the situations where the price

does reflect the quality.

Curling waterproof mascara.

Curling and waterproof mascara

claims kind of go hand in hand.

Waterproof mascara are completely water free,

meaning they are anhydrous

that when they flash off the lashes,

they allow the film formers to act.

Generally it will last longer if it's waterproof,

with the exception of if you got really oily eyelids

like I do, because oil loves oil.

The sebum in the eyelids will tend

to dissolve the oil soluble film formers.

So in that situation it probably won't last very long.

But if you have very watery eyes

or you're very sweaty, this is the formula for you.

So in a quality curling, waterproof mascara,

we're looking at A, the wand,

and B, I'm looking at the formulation overall

that allow the water resistance,

but also the hold of the lashes.

So let's move on to the visual analysis

starting with product A.

You can see here there's a curve to the wand

and basically as you brush this through your lashes,

that curled shape basically is mirroring the curve

of your eyeball and eyelashes.

So it helps to essentially as you're moving it

through the lash hold the lashes in that curl.

Now to product B.

So kind of similar concept,

more of of subtle curve in this wand.

Notice how the wand for this mimics more of the wand

of the tubing mascara.

So you have shorts, straight, evenly aligned bristles

to kind of get in between all the lashes.

So it's depositing the product more evenly

and maybe giving a little bit more volume.

This potentially also helps prevent clumping.

Also worth noting is obviously for product A,

this wand is more of like a traditional brush.

It is a custom shape, but it's more like a brush-brush.

B is more of that plasticy wand, in my opinion.

It costs more money to make the wand for product B.

So that could indicate quality though.

So now getting into the application,

starting with product A,

we see when the products applied onto Lauren's lashes,

we could add really good impact of curl.

Comparing the lash

with the application versus the clean lash.

We see a nice lift and lengthening of the lashes,

especially 'cause the lashes were so light in color,

we do see an impact of the black.

We see the product easily

and cleanly depositing on the lashes

and therefore we're seeing the drama.

We're seeing the overall effect of the mascara.

So impact of product A is substantial.

Now moving on to product B's application.

The lashes already had a natural curl to them,

so we're not seeing a more substantial lift

and curl the lashes necessarily due to the mascara.

But again, we are noticing the product depositing very well.

A very substantial effect in terms of drama,

in terms of intensity of the black pigment

and overall mascara B is delivering

as well in terms of the application.

So now onto the challenge test,

we're doing the waterproof test

because both mascara do claim waterproof wear,

we're going to be exposing them to the elements.

Since mascara's been on the models for over five minutes,

we assume it's going to have set by now.

We're going to be spraying them in the face with water

to see if the mascara is actually waterproof.

We're wanting the mascara to stay in place,

not smudge, not run.

And for that curl to stay curled.

So with the waterproof test for product A,

we noticed actually a really great performance

with both the pat and the swipe.

No product transferred to the tissue,

which to me indicates a really good waterproof wear mascara,

also, the lashes didn't seem to droop down

or lose their curl either.

And overall we did notice that the curl still held

even after heavily saturating the lashes.

Now onto product B, same test.

And overall very similar results

with both the pat and the swipe.

Very, very, very minimal product transfer onto the tissue.

I will say for the pats, it's hardly noticeable

how much product transfers with the swipe.

It was a very aggressive swipe.

But even with that very minimal product transferred,

even with all of that friction,

and we can still see that for product B as well,

it still held the curl really well,

even after being heavily saturated.

It is worth noting once again though,

that the lashes already had

a very, very pronounced natural curl.

Even just off that I actually could not tell you,

which is the higher end option.

So now let's look into the ingredients

starting with product A.

As I mentioned earlier,

since these are both water resistant,

water's not the first ingredient,

I'm still surprised to see it high up

on the ingredients list, we see the Acrylates copolymer,

the VP/Eicosene copolymer.

That's the oil soluble polymer,

which is going to contribute to the long wear,

heavy duty wear.

Now onto product B,

we see a considerably shorter ingredients list.

We just see the one colorant, the iron oxide very high up.

That's a black iron oxide.

So this one only comes in black.

Isodoecane is the first ingredient.

Similarly water's the third ingredient, again,

we see the VP/Eicosene copolymer, we see waxes.

So this one's not a crazy, crazy ingredients list.

So when we see the copolymers

and all those things, those are ingredients

that are borrowed from hairspray.

And what we know about hairspray is,

it's gonna hold the hair where you want it to be held.

And that's just due to the polymeric

nature of these ingredients.

And so when we see those in mascara, very similar concept.

It's like hair gel, it's holding the lashes

where you need them, where you want them.

In this regard, we're wanting that curl held.

That's where these ingredients come into play.

So while this is a shorter ingredients list,

maybe this one is a little bit more hair care,

maybe a little bit more lash care wise.

But again, nothing is really denoting a quality

difference to me at this moment in time.

I'm actually very stumped,

but my gut saying it's product A

is the higher quality product.

Let's find out.

So product A $33, okay, that's mid tier,

mid, very mid, mid tier.

But realistically based off the performance,

which is why I chose that one,

the price matches the performance.

Let's look at product B next, okay, $13.

I was really worried it's gonna be like 60 or something.

Realistically, this performed incredibly for a $13 mascara.

I am genuinely very shocked.

If these would've been in a similar price tier,

I would not be surprised.

But realistically, I went with product A

being the higher quality one, just because the performance

test was just this much better.

But product B still, she did the thing.

She was water resistant,

heavy duty, held the curl,

did everything that it was supposed to do.

So based off the three tests we saw today,

in terms of the relationship between price

and quality, it's very much a mixed bag.

Drugstore has some really great options

when it comes to mascaras.

From a cosmetic chemist perspective,

the brands basically trickle down a lot

of the same technology from the lux brands down

to the more affordable options.

For mascara, it really comes down to trying it out yourself

and seeing what works for you.

[soft music]