Which skincare ingredients actually have randomized controlled trials to support their claims? A comprehensive ranking based on the strength and quality of clinical evidence.
Not all "clinically tested" ingredients are created equal. The gold standard of medical evidence is the Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)—a study where participants are randomly assigned to receive either the active ingredient or a placebo, with neither participant nor researcher knowing which is which (double-blind).
This article ranks common skincare ingredients by the quality and quantity of RCT evidence supporting their efficacy. We only count human trials with objective measurements, not in-vitro studies or self-assessment surveys.
Strong Evidence: Multiple large RCTs, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews. Consistent results across studies.
Good Evidence: Several well-designed RCTs with positive results. Minor inconsistencies acceptable.
Moderate Evidence: Limited RCTs, or studies with methodological concerns. Promising but needs more research.
Limited Evidence: Few human studies, mostly observational or pilot studies. Theoretical basis exists.
Insufficient Evidence: Only in-vitro data, or no quality human trials. Marketing-driven claims.
Primary Claims: Anti-aging, acne treatment, hyperpigmentation
Notable studies: Griffiths et al. 1993 (NEJM), Kang et al. 2005, Fisher et al. 1996
Primary Claims: Skin cancer prevention, photoaging prevention
Notable studies: Green et al. 2011 (Annals of Internal Medicine), Hughes et al. 2013
Primary Claims: Acne treatment
Notable studies: Mills et al. 1986, Sagransky et al. 2009, Fakhouri et al. 2009
Primary Claims: Anti-aging, fine lines, skin texture
Notable studies: Kafi et al. 2007, Bellemère et al. 2009, Ho et al. 2012
Primary Claims: Antioxidant, brightening, collagen synthesis
Notable studies: Lin et al. 2005, Farris 2005, Pinnell et al. 2001
Primary Claims: Barrier repair, oil control, hyperpigmentation, anti-aging
Notable studies: Hakozaki et al. 2002, Draelos et al. 2005, Bissett et al. 2005
Primary Claims: Acne treatment, exfoliation, pore clearing
Notable studies: Zander & Weisman 1992, Shalita 1989
Glycolic, Lactic, Mandelic Acid
Evidence: Several RCTs support efficacy for photoaging and hyperpigmentation at concentrations of 8-12%. Lower OTC concentrations (4-8%) have less robust evidence.
Key study: Ditre et al. 1996
15-20% (prescription), lower OTC
Evidence: FDA-approved for rosacea (15% gel). RCTs show efficacy for acne and hyperpigmentation at 15-20%. Lower concentrations less studied.
Key study: Thiboutot et al. 2003
Various molecular weights
Evidence: RCTs show temporary hydration improvement. Evidence for anti-aging is weaker. Low molecular weight penetration claims need more validation.
Key study: Pavicic et al. 2011
Barrier repair
Evidence: RCTs show improved barrier function in compromised skin (eczema, aged skin). Evidence strongest when combined with cholesterol and fatty acids in proper ratios.
Key study: Chamlin et al. 2002
2% OTC, 4%+ prescription
Evidence: Strong evidence for hyperpigmentation efficacy. Safety concerns (ochronosis with prolonged use) limit long-term recommendations. FDA regulations vary by country.
Key study: Ennes et al. 2000
"Retinol alternative"
Evidence: One key RCT (2019, n=44) showed comparable results to 0.5% retinol. Promising but needs replication. Fewer total studies than retinoids.
Key study: Dhaliwal et al. 2019
These ingredients have theoretical mechanisms, some in-vitro data, or limited human studies. They may work, but the evidence isn't robust enough for strong claims.
Limited human RCTs. Most evidence is in-vitro. Signal peptides have theoretical basis but delivery/penetration questions remain.
Antioxidant properties proven in-vitro. Human studies for anti-aging or scar healing are mixed and often poorly designed.
Traditional use for wound healing. Some positive studies, but many are small or methodologically weak.
Theoretical mechanism for brightening (tyrosinase inhibition). Limited quality RCTs. Alpha-arbutin may be more effective.
Promising for melasma based on limited studies. Oral form has stronger evidence. Topical penetration questions remain.
Good moisturizing properties. Limited RCT evidence for specific claims beyond basic emolliency.
Caution: These ingredients are heavily marketed but lack quality human clinical trials. Claims are often based on in-vitro data, traditional use, or manufacturer-funded studies that aren't peer-reviewed.
Popular in K-beauty. Very limited human RCTs. Most evidence is anecdotal or in-vitro.
Collagen molecules too large to penetrate skin. May act as humectant but won't "rebuild" collagen.
Stability and penetration concerns. Limited quality human studies. Safety questions with long-term use.
Plant "stem cell" extracts don't contain living cells. Marketing term with minimal scientific backing.
Acai, goji, matcha, etc. as skincare. Antioxidant content doesn't guarantee topical efficacy.
Very limited dermatological research. Most studies are small, non-controlled, or industry-funded.
Tretinoin, sunscreen, and benzoyl peroxide have the strongest evidence base
OTC retinol and vitamin C have good evidence when properly formulated
Many "trending" ingredients lack quality human clinical trials
In-vitro studies don't guarantee real-world efficacy
Concentration and formulation matter as much as the ingredient
Prioritize evidence-backed ingredients for your core routine
Disclaimer: This ranking reflects current published research as of the publication date. Science evolves, and new studies may change these assessments. Always consult with a dermatologist for personalized recommendations. The absence of strong evidence doesn't mean an ingredient doesn't work—it may simply lack adequate research funding.
Continue building your evidence-based skincare knowledge
Learn to evaluate skincare research without a PhD.
Retinol vs Retinal vs Tretinoin: The complete guide.
What skincare marketing claims actually mean.
Take our science-based quiz for ingredient recommendations tailored to your skin.
Take the Skincare Quiz