We hold brands to a published standard. This page holds the directories to the same one. For each, it says who owns it, how it makes money, whether brands pay to appear, what it sells, whether it dates its work, and what it has been criticised for. Hold The Throne answers the same questions at the bottom.
Where we agree and where we do not
These assessments use different methods and scopes. A shared numeric range does not make their scores comparable. Read each original method, source and date; HTT does not treat certification, membership or an editorial recommendation as an equivalent Throne Score.
Comparison statistics are unavailable: a dated, matched record-level dataset supporting these averages and agreement rates has not been verified. Read each directory’s original methodology and the HTT method before comparing findings.
Who pays whom
Directories and certification bodies may receive fees, subscriptions or affiliate income. Funding alone does not establish whether an assessment is independent or correct. Aggregate funding claims are unavailable until each entry has dated supporting evidence.
Independent publisher. Ownership not verified by us.
How it makes money
Affiliate commission and its own shop.
Do brands pay it?
Not verified by us.
What it sells
Earns commission on brands it lists as cruelty-free.
Data and privacy
Not verified by us.
Cruelty-Free Kitty methodology
What it rates
Brands
Scale
Cruelty-free status, vetted / not
Method published?
Yes, its vetting questions are published.
Dates its findings?
No per-brand date published.
Can a brand appeal?
Brands are contacted directly for statements.
Known limits
Cruelty-free status is self-declared by brands and verified by correspondence, not audit.
Is Cruelty-Free Kitty reliable?
Is it independent of the brands it rates?
Independence has not been established. Check the dated affiliate disclosure and assessment method.
Is it up to date?
No per-brand date published.
What it is good for
Cruelty-free status, vetted / not
What it will not tell you
Cruelty-free status is self-declared by brands and verified by correspondence, not audit.
Cruelty-Free Kitty versus The Throne Scan
Their verdict is a yes-or-no certification, so there is no number to compare. We hold it beside our own score on 944 brands as evidence, never as our verdict.
Independent publisher. Ownership not verified by us.
How it makes money
Not verified by us.
Do brands pay it?
Not verified by us.
What it sells
Not verified by us.
Data and privacy
Not verified by us.
INCIDecoder methodology
What it rates
Products
Scale
No score, ingredient explainer
Method published?
It explains ingredients rather than scoring them.
Dates its findings?
Product pages are dated.
Can a brand appeal?
Not verified by us.
Known limits
Reproduces the declaration as printed, so an out-of-date pack shot carries forward.
Is INCIDecoder reliable?
Is it independent of the brands it rates?
Not verified by us.
Is it up to date?
Product pages are dated.
What it is good for
No score, ingredient explainer
What it will not tell you
Reproduces the declaration as printed, so an out-of-date pack shot carries forward.
INCIDecoder versus The Throne Scan
Their verdict is a yes-or-no certification, so there is no number to compare. We hold it beside our own score on 231 brands as evidence, never as our verdict.
LeafScore
Founded not verified by us · Covers Bedding, Candles, Homeware · Size 1,818 entries
Independent publisher. Ownership not verified by us.
How it makes money
Affiliate commission.
Do brands pay it?
Not verified by us.
What it sells
Earns commission on products it scores.
Data and privacy
Not verified by us.
LeafScore methodology
What it rates
Products/brands
Scale
Leaf score out of 5
Method published?
Scoring is described in prose rather than published as a framework.
Dates its findings?
Article dates only.
Can a brand appeal?
Not verified by us.
Known limits
Scores appear inside articles rather than as data, so they cannot be compared or audited at scale.
Is LeafScore reliable?
Is it independent of the brands it rates?
Independence has not been established. Check the dated affiliate disclosure and assessment method.
Is it up to date?
Article dates only.
What it is good for
Leaf score out of 5
What it will not tell you
Scores appear inside articles rather than as data, so they cannot be compared or audited at scale.
LeafScore versus The Throne Scan
Their verdict is a yes-or-no certification, so there is no number to compare. We hold it beside our own score on 5 brands as evidence, never as our verdict.
Run by the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics, a coalition of eight animal protection groups.
How it makes money
Certification fees paid by the companies it certifies, plus donations.
Do brands pay it?
Yes. Companies pay to be certified and must recommit annually.
What it sells
Its income comes from the companies on its list.
Data and privacy
Not verified by us.
Leaping Bunny methodology
What it rates
Companies
Scale
Certified / not
Method published?
Yes, the Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals is published.
Dates its findings?
Recommitment lists are published annually.
Can a brand appeal?
Certification is contractual; companies are audited.
Known limits
A paid certification means absence from the list does not prove a company tests on animals.
Is Leaping Bunny reliable?
Is it independent of the brands it rates?
Independence has not been established; funding alone is insufficient to determine it.
Is it up to date?
Recommitment lists are published annually.
What it is good for
Certified / not
What it will not tell you
A paid certification means absence from the list does not prove a company tests on animals.
Leaping Bunny versus The Throne Scan
Their verdict is a yes-or-no certification, so there is no number to compare. We hold it beside our own score on 1,587 brands as evidence, never as our verdict.
PETA Beauty Without Bunnies
Founded 1980s programme · Covers Beauty · Size 6,887 entries
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a US non-profit.
How it makes money
Donations to PETA. The listing itself is free.
Do brands pay it?
No fee to appear on the do-not-test list. Companies may license the logo.
What it sells
PETA campaigns on the same issues it rates, so the list serves an advocacy goal.
Data and privacy
Not verified by us.
PETA Beauty Without Bunnies methodology
What it rates
Companies
Scale
Approved / working for change / tests
Method published?
Partly. Companies self-declare by signing a statement of assurance.
Dates its findings?
Record modified dates are exposed in their API.
Can a brand appeal?
Companies can submit or update a declaration at any time.
Known limits
Status is self-declared rather than audited, and PETA’s own campaigning positions are contested.
Is PETA Beauty Without Bunnies reliable?
Is it independent of the brands it rates?
PETA campaigns on the same issues it rates, so the list serves an advocacy goal.
Is it up to date?
Record modified dates are exposed in their API.
What it is good for
Approved / working for change / tests
What it will not tell you
Status is self-declared rather than audited, and PETA’s own campaigning positions are contested.
PETA Beauty Without Bunnies versus The Throne Scan
Their verdict is a yes-or-no certification, so there is no number to compare. We hold it beside our own score on 427 brands as evidence, never as our verdict.
Slave Free Chocolate
Founded not verified by us · Covers Cocoa · Size 136 entries
Listing is binary and based on stated sourcing, with no published audit.
Is Slave Free Chocolate reliable?
Is it independent of the brands it rates?
Not verified by us.
Is it up to date?
No per-company date published.
What it is good for
Listed / not listed
What it will not tell you
Listing is binary and based on stated sourcing, with no published audit.
Slave Free Chocolate versus The Throne Scan
Their verdict is a yes-or-no certification, so there is no number to compare. We hold it beside our own score on 99 brands as evidence, never as our verdict.
Yuca SAS, a French company. Subscription funded, no advertising.
How it makes money
App. Yuka is subscription funded with no advertising; Think Dirty has run brand partnerships.
Do brands pay it?
Not verified by us.
What it sells
Not verified by us.
Data and privacy
Mobile app; scanning history is collected.
Yuka methodology
What it rates
Products
Scale
Score out of 100
Method published?
Not verified by us.
Dates its findings?
Not verified by us.
Can a brand appeal?
Not verified by us.
Known limits
Scores are generated from the declared ingredient list and a fixed rule set.
Is Yuka reliable?
Is it independent of the brands it rates?
Not verified by us.
Is it up to date?
Not verified by us.
What it is good for
Score out of 100
What it will not tell you
Scores are generated from the declared ingredient list and a fixed rule set.
Yuka versus The Throne Scan
Not yet reviewed by us. Listed so the picture is complete.
Hold The Throne
Founded 2021 · Covers every category on this page · Based British company, run from a farm in Colombia
Hold The Throne ownership and money
Owner
Independently owned and run by one person, @queenofvitality on Instagram. No investors, no parent company, no industry funding.
How it makes money
Mostly reader subscriptions. Some affiliate commission on links to brands. That is the whole of it.
Do brands pay us?
No. A brand cannot pay to be listed, to be scored, to change a score, or to be removed. There is no paid placement and no sponsored listing.
What we sell
Subscriptions to readers. We do not sell certification, accreditation, badges, consulting or data to the brands we rate.
Where the conflict is
Affiliate commission is a real conflict and worth naming: we earn if a reader buys from a brand. It does not touch the score, because the score comes from reading the product’s own composition, but it is income connected to brands we rate and you should know that.
Data and privacy
Accounts for subscribers. We do not sell reader data.
Hold The Throne methodology
What we rate
The product itself, not the company’s policy. Clothing on fibre composition, beauty on the INCI list, food and chocolate on the ingredient list, pet food on named whole meat against derivatives and fillers, electronics on materials, recycled content and repairability.
Scale
One to five, with the working shown per product.
Method published?
Yes. Every report shows how many products were read, out of how many, and the source of each composition.
Dates our findings?
Yes. Every scored page carries the date it was last checked.
Can a brand appeal?
Yes. If a composition has changed we re-scan and the score moves. Evidence changes the score; nothing else does.
Known limits
We can only read what a brand publishes. Where a company puts its ingredients in an image or behind JavaScript we cannot score it, and the page says so rather than guessing. Our scores are also stricter than everyone else’s, which will read as harsh if you expect a policy score.
Independence
Plant based and consistent about it. We do not recommend animal products. Listings are verified in person where possible, which involves travel and filming, and none of that travel is paid for by a brand.
Hold The Throne versus the directories
We score roughly three quarters of a point lower than every directory we can compare against. Nothing here says they are wrong. They answer different questions: whether a company has good policies, whether it tests on animals, whether its cocoa is responsibly sourced. Those are real questions and we cite their answers on every brand page. Ours is narrower and harder to pass, and we take no money from anyone to soften it.