Is Jojoba Oil Comedogenic?
Jojoba Oil is rated 2/5 in published comedogenicity lists — rated low-to-moderate.
Single-source Source: compilation. Only the reproduced compilation lists carry this number; not verified against the original table. How we rate
Also appears on labels as
- simmondsia chinensis seed oil
- simmondsia chinensis (jojoba) seed oil
What it is
Jojoba "oil" is technically a liquid wax — long-chain wax esters rather than the triglycerides that make up most plant oils. Structurally it is closer to the wax esters found in human sebum than almost any other botanical ingredient, and it is unusually resistant to oxidation, so it doesn't go rancid the way linoleic-rich oils can.
Why it's rated 2/5
Published lists place jojoba at 2 — low-to-moderate, below the flag threshold used on this site. That surprises people in both directions: it is not the guaranteed 0 that marketing sometimes implies, and it is nowhere near the classic offenders. A 2 means the raw ingredient produced mild comedone formation in the original assays; in finished formulas it is usually diluted well below the tested concentration.
On the label
Appears as Simmondsia Chinensis (Jojoba) Seed Oil. Common in facial oils at high concentrations and in creams as a mid-list emollient — the two are different exposures, and the first-three-positions rule of thumb applies.
When this rating can't be trusted
The 2/5 describes the raw ingredient in a rabbit-ear assay, usually at 10% in propylene glycol. It cannot tell you how much is in your product (position on the label is the only clue), what the rest of the formula does to it, or how your skin responds. Finished products containing highly rated ingredients have tested non-comedogenic on human skin (Draelos & DiNardo, JAAD 2006).
Can the 2/5 rating for Jojoba Oil be trusted?
Single-source This number comes only from reproduced compilation lists and has not been verified against the original table. Treat it as a screening signal from a copied list, not a measurement you can cite. Source: compilation.
A 2 is worth knowing about, not a flag: the AAD 1989 consensus puts 0–2 in the range unlikely to clog human pores. Full reasoning and bibliography.
Where the rating comes from
Ratings on this site come from published comedogenicity literature in the Fulton 1989 lineage — the 0–5 tables compiled from ingredient testing and reproduced across dermatology reference lists since. Where values disagree: a named primary source (Fulton 1989) outranks later unattributed lists, so its value is shown and the others are disclosed in the note; where only compilation lists disagree, the higher-caution value is shown. We never publish an invented number, and we never present one as more certain than its source: every rating carries a confidence tier — established (primary-source value, no disagreement on record), single-source (only the reproduced compilation lists carry it), or contested (published values disagree or depend on grade and vehicle; the note says which value is shown and why). Ingredients we cannot match appear as “not in our database” — unmatched, not cleared: no published list we hold rates them under that name, and that is not a pass.
Our flag threshold follows the American Academy of Dermatology's Invitational Symposium on Comedogenicity (J Am Acad Dermatol 1989): substances scoring 0–2 in the rabbit-ear assay are unlikely to clog pores in humans, while scores above 2 warrant more caution — which is why this site flags 3/5 and up. Read the full methodology and bibliography.
Related ingredients
Check your whole product
Paste the full ingredient list to see every flagged ingredient at once.