Every category score in one place
This page exists because the scores are spread across eight reviews and the comparisons people actually want cut across them. Whether a tinted mineral fluid is a better buy than a clear organic fluid depends on which of the two you are comparing it for, and until now that answer sat in two different pages.
The table below lists every category, its score out of 100, and the highest and lowest scoring formulation inside it. Every figure is the figure published on the review page it links to.
| Category review | Category score | Highest scoring formulation | Lowest scoring formulation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mineral sunscreens | 82 | Zinc oxide cream, high filter load (86) | Brush-on mineral powder (48) |
| Chemical sunscreens | 88 | Modern broad spectrum filter fluid (90) | Alcohol based aerosol spray (66) |
| Sensitive skin | 84 | Fragrance free zinc oxide cream (88) | Alcohol based spray (52) |
| Water resistant | 85 | Very water resistant organic filter emulsion (88) | Sport aerosol spray (60) |
| Deep skin tones | 86 | Tinted hybrid fluid with iron oxides (90) | Untinted high load zinc cream (62) |
| Under makeup | 83 | Light organic filter fluid (88) | SPF in foundation or powder alone (40) |
| Kids sunscreen | 84 | Fragrance free high zinc cream (88) | Aerosol spray (58) |
| Sport and outdoor | 82 | Very water resistant emulsion (88) | Powder or wipe top up (45) |
Two things are immediately visible. Category scores cluster tightly, between 82 and 88, while formulation scores inside them spread from 40 to 90. That is the whole argument of this site in one observation. The category you shop in matters far less than the format you pick inside it, because format decides how much product reaches skin and how long it stays there.
Every formulation type we score
The full list follows, grouped by the review it comes from. A formulation appearing twice under different categories is scored twice on purpose, because the same format can be excellent for one job and poor for another. A tinted mineral fluid earns 84 as a mineral sunscreen and 80 for deep skin tones, and the difference is shade range rather than chemistry.
| Category | Formulation type | Score | What it is best at | Where it gives way |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mineral sunscreens | Zinc oxide cream, high filter load | 86 | Reliable long UVA coverage, very low irritation risk | Visible cast, heavy feel, slow to rub in |
| Mineral sunscreens | Tinted mineral fluid with iron oxides | 84 | Visible light protection, no grey cast on most tones | Shade range limits who it suits |
| Mineral sunscreens | Zinc plus titanium dioxide lotion | 82 | Balanced texture, good UVB numbers at lower zinc levels | Long UVA performance depends entirely on the zinc share |
| Mineral sunscreens | Mineral stick | 74 | Nose, ears, scars and eye area, no drip | Easy to under apply across a whole face |
| Mineral sunscreens | Brush-on mineral powder | 48 | Nothing, as a primary sunscreen | Delivered dose is far below the tested dose |
| Chemical sunscreens | Modern broad spectrum filter fluid | 90 | Even UVB and UVA coverage in a light texture | Costs more, and filter names are hard to read |
| Chemical sunscreens | Hybrid organic filters plus zinc oxide | 84 | Belt and braces coverage with a slight tint benefit | Can feel heavier than a pure organic fluid |
| Chemical sunscreens | Avobenzone with octocrylene lotion | 78 | Widely available, well understood, cheap | Octocrylene is one of the more common photoallergens |
| Chemical sunscreens | Organic filters in a rich body lotion | 72 | Comfortable on dry limbs, easy to spread thickly | Fragrance load is often high and UVA balance mediocre |
| Chemical sunscreens | Alcohol based aerosol spray | 66 | Speed on backs, legs and hairlines | Delivered dose is low, uneven and wind dependent |
| Sensitive skin | Fragrance free zinc oxide cream | 88 | Lowest confirmed reaction rate of any format | Cast and weight, particularly on deep skin |
| Sensitive skin | Fragrance free hybrid mineral and organic fluid | 82 | Good UVA balance with a much lighter feel | More ingredients means more variables to test |
| Sensitive skin | Fragrance free organic filter fluid | 78 | Elegant daily wear, no cast at all | Filter allergy, though uncommon, is possible |
| Sensitive skin | Scented lotion marketed for sensitive skin | 58 | Nothing that a fragrance free version does not do better | Fragrance is the most common cause of sunscreen reactions |
| Sensitive skin | Alcohol based spray | 52 | Speed | Alcohol strips an already compromised barrier and the dose is thin |
| Water resistant | Very water resistant organic filter emulsion | 88 | Holding SPF through repeated immersion | Rich film that needs deliberate spreading |
| Water resistant | Water resistant hybrid mineral and organic fluid | 85 | Balance of durability and a wearable texture | Slightly less durable than a full emulsion |
| Water resistant | Water resistant zinc oxide cream | 80 | Face, shoulders and children, very low sting | Rubs off on towels and clothing more readily |
| Water resistant | Water resistant stick | 76 | Nose, ears, cheekbones and around the eyes | Impossible to cover a whole body properly |
| Water resistant | Sport aerosol spray | 60 | Speed between activities | Delivered dose too thin for the tested claim to mean much |
| Deep skin tones | Tinted hybrid fluid with iron oxides | 90 | Pigmentation control, invisible finish, full spectrum | Shade range is the practical limit |
| Deep skin tones | Clear organic filter fluid | 86 | No cast at all, easy daily wear | No visible light protection |
| Deep skin tones | Tinted mineral fluid | 80 | Low irritation with visible light cover | Deepest shades are still poorly served |
| Deep skin tones | Alcohol based clear spray | 70 | Scalp partings, hairlines and beards | Thin dose, and drying on the skin beneath |
| Deep skin tones | Untinted high load zinc cream | 62 | UV protection on paper | Grey cast that no amount of blending removes |
| Under makeup | Light organic filter fluid | 88 | Setting fast, staying put, no pilling | Some fluids sting around the eyes |
| Under makeup | Hybrid gel cream | 84 | Comfort on drier skin with good grip for makeup | Slower to set, needs a minute before base goes on |
| Under makeup | Tinted mineral fluid | 80 | Replacing a light base entirely, one layer fewer | Shade range, and transfer onto collars |
| Under makeup | Rich mineral cream | 64 | Protection on paper | Pills under foundation and slides through the day |
| Under makeup | SPF in foundation or powder alone | 40 | A margin of extra protection | Applied at a small fraction of the tested dose |
| Kids sunscreen | Fragrance free high zinc cream | 88 | Faces, babies over six months, reactive skin | Slow to apply on a wriggling child |
| Kids sunscreen | Very water resistant kids' lotion, SPF 50 | 86 | Beach and pool days, whole body coverage | Needs a genuine reapplication habit |
| Kids sunscreen | Kids' stick | 78 | Noses, ears, cheeks and shoulder tops | Under applied if used for whole limbs |
| Kids sunscreen | Non aerosol lotion spray or pump | 72 | Speed on backs and legs, then spread by hand | Only works if you rub it in afterwards |
| Kids sunscreen | Aerosol spray | 58 | Convenience and nothing else | Thin, uneven dose and an inhalation concern |
| Sport and outdoor | Very water resistant emulsion | 88 | Sweat, friction and long days without reapplication windows | Rich texture that takes effort to spread |
| Sport and outdoor | Sport stick | 82 | Nose, ears, cheekbones and the back of the neck | Cannot cover limbs at a sensible dose |
| Sport and outdoor | Water resistant hybrid fluid | 80 | Running and cycling where a heavy film is unpleasant | Less durable across a full day |
| Sport and outdoor | Powder or wipe top up | 45 | Emergency use only | Delivered dose is nowhere near the tested dose |
| Sport and outdoor | Aerosol sport spray | 60 | Fast top ups between activities | Thin uneven film, and useless in wind |
How to read a score
A score is not a verdict on quality of manufacture. It is a rating of how a formulation type behaves against five criteria: broad spectrum evidence at 25 points, realistic dose delivery at 25, wear and reapplication at 20, tolerability at 15 and label transparency at 15. The weights and the score bands are set out in full on the method page, and two reviews shift ten points of weight for a stated reason.
The bands matter more than the individual numbers. Anything from 85 upwards is a format we would choose for the job in question. From 70 to 84 there is a known trade off, usually cosmetic. From 55 to 69 something better exists for the same job. Below 55 there is a structural weakness, and below 40 a format should not be relied on as a primary sunscreen at all. A two point gap between two formats is not meaningful. A twenty point gap is.
The four patterns the table exposes
Powders and mixed use cosmetics score lowest, everywhere. Brush on mineral powder scores 48, sun protection factor in foundation or powder used alone scores 40, and a powder or wipe top up scores 45. The filters in them are not the problem. The delivered film is a small fraction of the tested dose in every case, and no filter system recovers from that.
Aerosols sit in a band of their own. Alcohol based sprays score between 52 and 70 depending on the job, and the reason is the same each time: part of the plume never lands, the film is uneven, and wind makes both worse. They keep a place for scalps, hairlines and backs, which is a genuine use, and they lose it as a primary whole body sunscreen.
Fluids beat creams for anything worn daily, and lose for anything sustained. Light fluids take the top slots under makeup at 88 and in chemical sunscreens at 90, because they get applied properly and repeatedly. Very water resistant emulsions take the top slots for sport and water at 88, because they survive. The format that wins is the one whose weakness your day does not test.
Tint is a protection feature, not a cosmetic one. The two 90s on the site are a modern broad spectrum filter fluid and a tinted hybrid fluid with iron oxides. Iron oxides absorb visible light, which contributes to pigmentation, and the tinted formats score highest in exactly the reviews where pigmentation is the reader's problem.
What the table cannot do for you
It cannot tell you which bottle to buy, and it is not built to. Two products in the same formulation category can differ in filter load, photostability and preservative system, and none of that is visible from the category alone. What the table narrows is the shortlist: it tells you which shelf to stand in front of and which format to reject before you read a single front of pack claim.
It also cannot account for the one variable that beats everything else, which is whether you apply enough of the product and apply it again. A format scoring 78 that you use generously twice a day protects better than one scoring 90 that you ration. The arithmetic behind that sits in our guide to how much sunscreen to actually apply.
Limits
Scores rate categories, never products, brands, ranges or retailers, and no company can buy, preview or influence one. We run no laboratory testing of our own and say so plainly. The scores rest on published testing standards, the permitted filter list that applies in the United Kingdom, published scientific committee opinions and peer reviewed literature, combined with a stated weighting. Where a formulation category changes materially, for example through a new filter permission, the affected review is revised and this table is rebuilt from it.
Sources
- NHS, sunscreen and sun safety guidance for the public, including the minimum factor and reapplication advice used as a baseline throughout this site. Accessed 15 August 2026.
- British Association of Dermatologists, patient information on sunscreen selection and application. Accessed 15 August 2026.
- Cancer Research UK, sun, ultraviolet radiation and cancer risk. Accessed 15 August 2026.
- British Skin Foundation, public information on skin cancer and sun protection. Accessed 15 August 2026.
Reviewed 15 August 2026. This table is rebuilt whenever a category review changes, so the figures here and the figures on each review page are always the same figures.