A quantitative monadic study conducted in France with 106 women over 28 days of home use. Evaluation of the efficacy, sensory experience, and tolerability of a facial serum.
8,3/10
Note globale
106
Panelists
28j
Test duration
92,5%
They wish to continue
87,7%
Purchase intent
SY 25034172 · Report 2506 043
Completed · 96,4% usable
Synthesis
Protocol
Presentation of the study
ProductFace serum — bottle with dropper, unbranded
MethodMonadic test — home use, self-assessment, co-developed questionnaire
LocationFrance — home testing
Duration28 days
Frequency2 times a day — morning and evening
Scope of applicationFace and neck — before your usual cream
QuestionnairesDay 1 (immediately after the first application) · Day 28 (end of the study)
RecruitmentBy telephone, according to inclusion criteria
Key points
Strengths & weaknesses
✦ Strengths — Effectiveness
From day 1: Radiance and luminosity achieved (71,7% skin appears brighter, significant)
Day 28: Brighter skin for 90,6% and more radiant for 85,8% — all significant radiance claims
Firmness/plumping very good at day 28: 92,5% hydrated skin, 84% feeling firmer
✦ Strengths — Sensory
100%: the serum does not pill on the skin (Day 1)
Non-greasy for 97,2% and fast absorption for 90,6% from day 1
An enveloping, ultra-light and sensorial texture for ≥ 91,5% at day 28
⚠ Areas for improvement — Efficiency
“Skin reflects light optimally” not significant on day 1 (56,6%)
“New rosy glow” and “stronger skin” not significant on day 1 (< 60%)
Gentle exfoliating effect barely perceived: 49,1% at day 28 (not significant)
⚠ Areas for improvement — Fragrance & Packaging
Fragrance: 16% negative comments at day 28 (11,3% find it unpleasant)
Packaging: 34% negative comments — 8,5% judged the dose insufficient, 9,4% the dosage irregular
Acceptability: 12,3% found that the serum left their skin sticky.
✔ Tolerance — Very good
Very good tolerance, inducing less discomfort and intolerance than the historical average of serums tested over 28 days in France. No panelist discontinued use due to a reaction.
General conclusion : The serum is very well received (8,3/10, above the historical average of 7,8/10). 92,5% of volunteers wish to continue using it and 87,7% would buy it—excellent results. 65,1% consider it better than their usual serum.
Panel
Inclusion criteria
Target profile
Caucasian women aged 25 to 65
All phototypes — 30 to 50% of sensitive skin (ARPP)
Reporting a lack of radiance, uneven/rough skin texture, and loss of elasticity
Women who use serum in their routine (all sales channels)
Available for the duration of the study
Characteristics
106 usable volunteers
Women106 (100%)
Minimum/maximum age25 - 65 years
Middle age48,4 ± 10,6 years
Sensitive skin49,1%
Sensitive eyes35,8%
Wearing contact lenses8,5%
Lack of brilliance (criterion)100%
Irregular grain (criterion)100%
Loss of elasticity (criterion)100%
Usable questionnaires106 / 110 (96,4%)
Age
Breakdown by tranche
55 - 65 years
n=106
38%
35 - 44 years
n=106
30%
45 - 54 years
n=106
21%
25 - 34 years
n=106
11%
Phototypes
Panel breakdown
Phototype III
n=106
45%
Phototype II
n=106
41%
Phototype I
n=106
9%
Phototype IV
n=106
6%
Skin type
Panel breakdown
Mixed
n=106
25%
Normal-dry
n=106
23%
Normal-oily
n=106
20%
Slimming
n=106
18%
Normal
n=106
12%
Very dry
n=106
2%
Grasse
n=106
1%
Habits
Everyday routine
Serum users
n=106
100%
Product use
Protocol compliance
2x/day as requested100% (106/106)
Recommended action respected100% (106/106)
Uninterrupted use (28 days)100% (106/106)
Efficiency
Radiance/Brightness — Immediately after the first application
Brighter skin
Significantn=106
72%
Instant radiance boost
Significantn=106
72%
Radiant skin (glow)
Significantn=106
63%
Reflects light optimally
Not significantn=106
57%
The radiance/luminosity achieves good results from the first application. Simply stating "the skin reflects light optimally" is not significant.
Vitality — Immediately after the first application
"Healthy" skin
Significantn=106
77%
Protected skin
Significantn=106
73%
Fresher complexion
Significantn=106
70%
Revitalized skin / full of vitality
Significantn=106
65%
New rosy glow
Not significantn=106
59%
Stronger skin
Not significantn=106
59%
Good overall results, but the claims about rosy glow and skin strength are not significant on day 1.
Skin Texture & Plumping — Day 1
Softer skin
Significantn=106
77%
Smoother skin
Significantn=106
70%
Velvety skin
Significantn=106
68%
Refined skin texture
Significantn=106
63%
Hydrated skin
Significantn=106
76%
A feeling of firmness
Significantn=106
67%
Plumped skin
Significantn=106
66%
Good effectiveness on the plumping effect from one application: 75,5% of skin hydrated, significant firmness and plumping.
Radiance/Brightness — After 28 days
Brighter skin
Significantn=106
91%
Soothes and protects to preserve radiance
Significantn=106
89%
More radiant skin
Significantn=106
86%
Radiant skin (glow)
Significantn=106
80%
Reflects light optimally
Significantn=106
76%
Reveals a youthful glow
Significantn=106
76%
Prolonged youthful radiance
Significantn=106
74%
Reactivates and enhances youthful radiance
Significantn=106
73%
Clear progress at day 28
All the radiance claims are significant. 90,6% brighter skin — slightly above the historical average (84,7%).
Vitality & Plumping — After 28 days
"Healthy" skin
Significantn=106
95%
Revitalized skin / full of vitality
Significantn=106
90%
Fresher complexion
Significantn=106
88%
Protected skin
Significantn=106
79%
Stronger skin
Significantn=106
78%
New rosy glow
Significantn=106
76%
Hydrated skin
Significantn=106
93%
A feeling of firmness
Significantn=106
84%
Plumped skin
Significantn=106
82%
Firmness/plumping very good
Excellent vitality and plumping at day 28: all significant claims. 92,5% of skin hydrated.
Texture & Application
Skin texture — After 28 days
Softer skin
Significantn=106
90%
More even skin texture
Significantn=106
83%
Smoother skin
Significantn=106
79%
Velvety skin
Significantn=106
78%
Refined skin texture
Significantn=106
76%
Retexturized skin
Significantn=106
75%
Gently exfoliates/micro-exfoliates
Not significantn=106
49%
Point of attention
Very good results on softness and smoothness, but the claim "exfoliates / gently micro-exfoliates" is shared (49,1%, not significant).
Application / Fragrance — Immediately after the first application
Does not pill on the skin
Significantn=106
100%
Non-greasy
Significantn=106
97%
Penetrates quickly
Significantn=106
91%
Perfume awakens the senses / well-being
Significantn=106
87%
A rich, ultra-light, sensorial texture
Significantn=106
83%
Sensation of extreme softness
Significantn=106
78%
Non sticky
Significantn=106
76%
Application and fragrance were very well received from day 1. 100% of women confirmed that the serum does not pill.
Application / Fragrance — After 28 days
Does not pill on the skin
Significantn=106
99%
Non-greasy
Significantn=106
98%
Penetrates quickly
Significantn=106
93%
A rich, ultra-light, sensorial texture
Significantn=106
92%
Sensation of extreme softness
Significantn=106
87%
Perfume awakens the senses / well-being
Significantn=106
85%
Non sticky
Significantn=106
73%
Application and fragrance still very much appreciated at J28: non-greasy, fast penetration and sensorial texture for ≥ 91,5%.
Open comments — Day 28
Perfume — positive reviews66,0%
Perfume — negative reviews16,0%
Unpleasant smell11,3%
Texture — positive reviews55,7%
Texture — negative comments7,5%
Acceptability — leaves skin sticky12,3%
Packaging — positive reviews80,2%
Packaging — negative comments34,0%
Dose deemed insufficient8,5%
Appreciation
Note globale
Rating on a scale of 0–10
8,3/10
Above the historical average of the serums tested (7,8/10)
Detailed notes
Criteria evaluated (average /10)
Easy application
n=106
91%
Product color
n=106
90%
Penetration time
n=106
87%
Packaging
n=106
85%
Product appearance
n=106
84%
Consistency / texture
n=106
84%
Note globale
n=106
83%
Scent after application
n=106
83%
Sensations on the skin
n=106
83%
Perceived effectiveness
n=106
82%
Intentions
Continuity of use & purchase intent
They wish to continue using
Significantn=106
93%
Would buy the product (regardless of price)
Significantn=106
88%
Comparative use
vs. usual serum
Better than the usual product
n=106
65%
Equivalent to the usual product
n=106
23%
Not as good as the usual product
n=106
12%
Free comments
Spontaneous mentions — Day 28
App — positive reviews53,8%
Easily absorbed31,1%
Easy to apply18,9%
Effectiveness — positive feedback53,8%
Luminous/radiant skin (mention)14,2%
Color — positive reviews13,2%
Acceptability — positive feedback16,0%
Acceptability — negative comments15,1%
Tolerance
Tolerance assessment
Overview
Very good tolerance
The serum caused less discomfort and intolerance than the historical average of serums tested over 28 days in France. No panelist discontinued use due to a reaction.
Rate — After 28 days
Quantified indicators
Gene rate (vs. 6,8% historical)
n=106
2%
Intolerance rates (vs. historical 5,1%)
n=106
5%
Good tolerance
n=106
95%
Tolerance — Immediately after the first application
Drought0,9% — 1 panelist
Torsion0,9% — 1 panelist
Tingling0,9% — 1 panelist
2,8% of women experienced discomfort after the first application; no intolerance was reported. These panelists reported no reactions after 28 days.
Gene details — 1,9% at day 28
Torsion1,9% — 2 women
These genes have an influence of −10,5% on the score (vs −15,7% usually for sera).
Details of intolerances — 4,7% at day 28
Buttons3,8% — 4 women
Rash0,9% — 1 woman
Slight influence of -5,0% on the score (vs. -23,9% usual). No panelist stopped using the product following their reaction.