Shampooing volumateur vs Wella professionals Invigo Nutri-Enrich Nourishing Shampoo for Dry and Damaged Hair - Volume: 1000 ml
Shampooing volumateur and Wella professionals Invigo Nutri-Enrich Nourishing Shampoo for Dry and Damaged Hair - Volume: 1000 ml share 9 parsed ingredients. Differences highlighted below.
Shared 9Shampooing volumateur only 7Wella professionals Invigo Nutri-Enrich Nourishing Shampoo for Dry and Damaged Hair - Volume: 1000 ml only 24
Permalink for this comparison →
Shared formula
23%
- Ingredients in every formula
- 9in both formulas
- Key actives unique to one formula
- 2unique actives
- Ingredient rows compared
- 40rows compared
From the parsed labels — rows on every label over all compared rows.
The formulas, row by row
40 ingredients across 2 labels| on 2+ labelsonly on this labelnot on this labelIngredient | ||
|---|---|---|
Basics | ||
| Type & size | Shampoo · size not on the record | Shampoo · size not on the record |
Offers | ||
| Where to buy | Not recorded | Not recorded |
| Availabilitydiffers | Not recorded | in stock |
Formula | ||
| Key activesdiffers | panthenol | panthenol, salicylic acid, lactic acid |
| Free ofdiffers | fragrance-free, alcohol-free, paraben-free, silicone-free | alcohol-free |
| Heads-updiffers | fungal-acne trigger · high pore-rating flag | pregnancy caution · photosensitizing · fragrance allergens · fungal-acne trigger · high pore-rating flag |
Fit & community | ||
| Rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Best for | Not recorded | Not recorded |
Data quality | ||
| Label coveragediffers | Fully parsed · 16 ingredients | Fully parsed · 33 ingredients |
Key actives · 2 | ||
aha exfoliant (gentle) | no | yes |
bha exfoliant | no | yes |
Rest of the labels · 29 | ||
2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol | yes | no |
a silicone | no | yes |
acrylates copolymer | yes | no |
benzyl salicylate | no | yes |
cocamide mea | no | yes |
cocamide mipa | yes | no |
fragrance | no | yes |
glycerin | no | yes |
glycol distearate | no | yes |
glycol stearate | yes | no |
guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride | no | yes |
hexyl cinnamal | no | yes |
limonene | no | yes |
linalool | no | yes |
lycium barbarum fruit extract | no | yes |
magnesium chloride | no | yes |
magnesium nitrate | no | yes |
methylchloroisothiazolinone | no | yes |
methylisothiazolinone | no | yes |
methylparaben | no | yes |
oleic acid | no | yes |
pantolactone | yes | no |
ppg-7 | yes | no |
sodium citrate | no | yes |
sodium hydroxide | no | yes |
sodium xylenesulfonate | no | yes |
trisodium ethylenediamine disuccinate | no | yes |
water | yes | no |
water | no | yes |
Rows come from parsed labels and live offers. Where a label isn’t fully captured, we say so instead of guessing.
The bottom line
Choose Eco+ if you avoid fragrance.
Choose Wella if you want BHA exfoliant in the formula.
Both lines come from the parsed labels and the prices on this page — neither product is the reference, and neither is called the better one.
This is not medical advice.
Focus on an effect
People also compare
- Eco+Shampooing extra doux Camomille & Germes de blé cheveux blonds
- WellaVisible repair shampoo Londa 1000ml
- Eco+Shampooing aux oeufs
Suggested from shared ingredients on the parsed labels — each pair opens as its own comparison.