Probio-Cica Glow Sun Ampoule and VT Cosmetics, Red Booster Reedle Shot® 100, 1.69 fl oz (50 ml) share 18 parsed ingredients. Differences highlighted below.
Shared 18Probio-Cica Glow Sun Ampoule only 26VT Cosmetics, Red Booster Reedle Shot® 100, 1.69 fl oz (50 ml) only 21
Permalink for this comparison →
28%
From the parsed labels — rows on every label over all compared rows.
| on 2+ labelsonly on this labelnot on this labelIngredient | ||
|---|---|---|
Basics | ||
| Type & size | Serum · size not on the record | Serum · size not on the record |
| Brand origin | Korean | Korean |
Offers | ||
| Where to buy | Not recorded | Not recorded |
| Availabilitydiffers | Not recorded | in stock |
Formula | ||
| Key activesdiffers | niacinamide, panthenol, centella asiatica extract, ceramide np | niacinamide, centella asiatica extract, panthenol, arbutin, sodium hyaluronate, ceramide np |
| Free of | fragrance-free, sulfate-free, alcohol-free, paraben-free, silicone-free | fragrance-free, sulfate-free, alcohol-free, paraben-free, silicone-free |
| Heads-updiffers | fungal-acne trigger · high pore-rating flag | pregnancy cautionPore data not yet reviewed |
Fit & community | ||
| Rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Best for | Not recorded | Not recorded |
Data quality | ||
| Label coveragediffers | Fully parsed · 44 ingredients | Fully parsed · 39 ingredients |
Key actives · 2 | ||
arbutin | no | yes |
hyaluronic acid (salt form) | no | yes |
Rest of the labels · 45 | ||
aloe barbadensis leaf extract | yes | no |
arginine | no | yes |
betaine | yes | no |
bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine | yes | no |
butyloctyl salicylate | yes | no |
caprylyl glycol | no | yes |
dextrin | no | yes |
dibutyl adipate | yes | no |
diethoxyethyl succinate | no | yes |
diethylamino hydroxybenzoyl hexyl benzoate | yes | no |
dioscorea japonica root extract | yes | no |
dipropylene glycol | no | yes |
disodium edta | no | yes |
ethylhexyl triazone | yes | no |
glyceryl stearate citrate | yes | no |
glycine | no | yes |
glycosphingolipids | no | yes |
hydroxyacetophenone | no | yes |
hydroxypropyl methylcellulose stearoxy ether | yes | no |
hydroxystearic acid | yes | no |
lactobacillus ferment | yes | no |
laminaria japonica extract | yes | no |
lauric acid | yes | no |
lauryl glucoside | yes | no |
macadamia ternifolia seed oil | yes | no |
madecassoside | no | yes |
malachite extract | no | yes |
melia azadirachta leaf extract | no | yes |
moringa oleifera seed oil | no | yes |
phytosphingosine | yes | no |
phytosterols | yes | no |
poly c10-30 alkyl acrylate | yes | no |
polyglyceryl-10 myristate | yes | no |
polyglyceryl-3 distearate | yes | no |
propolis extract | no | yes |
silica | no | yes |
sodium carbomer | no | yes |
sodium polyacryloyldimethyl taurate | yes | no |
sucrose distearate | yes | no |
terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid | yes | no |
tetrahydroxypropyl ethylenediamine | no | yes |
ulmus davidiana root extract | yes | no |
viola mandshurica flower extract | yes | no |
vitamin e | no | yes |
xanthan gum | no | yes |
Rows come from parsed labels and live offers. Where a label isn’t fully captured, we say so instead of guessing.
Choose SKIN1004 if you want a comparable formula for $16.56 less.
Choose VT Cosmetics if you want Arbutin 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.
Suggested from shared ingredients on the parsed labels — each pair opens as its own comparison.