Which beauty experts review brands they founded? We found eight.

Eight reviewers on our roster currently recommend a product from a brand they founded, and the Index flags each one with a Founder Conflict badge. They are Liah Yoo on the Krave Beauty Makeup Rewind cleanser, Dr Sam Bunting on the Dr Sam's Flawless Cleanser, Dr. Sam Ellis on the Prequel Multi-Quench serum, Dr. Shereene Idriss on the Dr. Idriss Major Fade serum, Susan Yara on the Naturium Phyto-Glow Lip Balm, Caroline Hirons on the Skin Rocks Retinoid 2, Jamie Genevieve on the Vieve Skin Nova primer, and Mad About Skin on his own peptide serum. For seven of the eight, reviewers with nothing to gain reached for the same product too. For the eighth, they did not, and that is the one worth reading closely.

A lot of the experts people watch for skincare advice aren't just reviewing products anymore. They are selling their own. So when one of them holds up a serum and calls it a "powerhouse," it is worth knowing whether they make money every time someone buys it. None of this is hidden, and none of it is a scandal. Honestly, a founder loving their own product is the most predictable review on earth. The real question isn't whether to trust it, it's how much to take it with a grain of salt. That is why we slap a Founder Conflict badge on it wherever it shows up, and why, below, we put each founder's rave next to the reviewers who tested the same thing with nothing to gain.

The eight pairs, and who else backs them up

A founder saying yes to their own product proves basically nothing on its own. What actually counts is what reviewers with no skin in the game think. So we pulled every other reviewer on record for each one, strongest outside backing first. The good news? The crowd mostly agrees. Not always, though, and the exception is the most useful row in the table.

Liah Yoo on the Krave Beauty Makeup Rewind cleanser. The strongest case of the eight, and the shortest quote: "Makeup Rewind is my favorite product." It was not a paid placement, and every single independent reviewer on record agrees with her. Five of them, including Hyram, James Welsh and Mad About Skin, with nobody landing on mixed or no. A Guru Score of 85% across 6 experts, five of whom make nothing from it. And the founder's own take never moves the number anyway: a founder's review stays on the page, labeled, but carries no vote in the Guru Score.

Dr Sam Bunting on the Dr Sam's Flawless Cleanser. The newest founder on the roster, and the biggest outside panel in this story. The London dermatologist launched Dr Sam's in 2018 out of her own clinic, and none of her takes on her own line were paid placements. The cleanser holds a Guru Score of 87% across 8 experts, and 6 of the 7 independent reviewers on record said yes, among them Caroline Hirons, Gothamista, No BS Beauty and Mad About Skin, with Doctor Anne the only one settling on mixed. When that many unpaid voices reach for the founder's own product, the badge is there to note the stake, not to cast doubt on the score.

Dr. Sam Ellis on the Prequel Multi-Quench serum. Her pitch is refreshingly specific: polyglutamic acid to "draw water to the skin surface and plump it immediately," plus barrier support. Among 7 experts it holds a Guru Score of 68%, with independent yeses from Kelly Driscoll, No BS Beauty, Allie Glines and Beyond50Skin, and Dr Dray and AliceintheRabbitHole landing on mixed. Most of her takes on it were paid placements, and the outsiders mostly agree anyway.

Dr. Shereene Idriss on the Dr. Idriss Major Fade serum. She calls it "the powerhouse serum" for dark spots, in a video that was itself a paid placement. But she is far from the only fan: across 6 experts it holds a Guru Score of 74%, with independent yeses from Dr. Jenny Liu, Skin Obsessed Mary, Beyond50Skin and Mad About Skin, and one no from No BS Beauty. When outsiders back up the founder like that, the conflict shrinks to a footnote.

Susan Yara on the Naturium Phyto-Glow Lip Balm. Her "my 50th jar" rave was not a paid placement, and the balm holds a Guru Score of 67% across 7 experts, with independent yeses from Robert Welsh, James Welsh and Beyond50Skin, two mixed reads from Nadine Baggott and Skin Obsessed Mary, and one no from AliceintheRabbitHole. A founder who keeps re-buying her own product with her own money is about as good as a founder review gets, but the outside verdict here is genuinely split: three yeses, two mixed and one no. Worth knowing: she publishes on two channels, Susan Yara and Mixed Makeup, and both carry the badge on Naturium.

Caroline Hirons on the Skin Rocks Retinoid 2. The most technical of the eight. She does not just praise it, she specifies it: 0.5% with boosters, "which makes it around 0.6%," and no retinol in the formula. Not a paid placement. A Guru Score of 80%, but on only 3 experts, so the sample is thin even though both outsiders, Dr. Shereene Idriss and Nadine Baggott, said yes.

Jamie Genevieve on the Vieve Skin Nova primer. Another thin one: a Guru Score of 83% across just 3 experts. The encouraging part is that two of the three are independent, Caroline Hirons and Allie Glines, not just Jamie herself, whose 202% hydration claim came in a sponsored video. A small sample is still a small sample, so read the score as promising rather than the final word, which is exactly when that badge earns its keep.

Mad About Skin on his own peptide serum. This is the one that breaks the pattern, and the reason to keep reading past the reassuring rows. He is enthusiastic about it across eight separate takes, none of them paid, praising the "20% overall blend of peptides" and the encapsulation that lets you layer it with vitamin C. But the outside verdict is split down the middle: Nipun Kapur says yes, Beyond50Skin says no. That is a Guru Score of 68% resting on 3 experts, and the founder's own take carries no vote in it. Nothing here says the serum is bad. It says the independent evidence is genuinely thin and genuinely divided, which is the precise situation the badge exists for.

One thing worth a double-take: for three of these eight, at least one of the founder's own takes on the product was also a paid placement. A founder conflict and a sponsorship, stacked. Pair that with our finding that sponsored reviews end in a yes 90% of the time and the math is clear: when someone both owns a product and is paid to mention it, the glowing review is baked in before anyone presses play. The reassuring twist is that for seven of the eight, reviewers with zero incentive reached for the same product anyway.

So no, this isn't us saying the products are bad. The data mostly says the opposite. The badge just lets anyone read a glowing review knowing the person giving it has skin in the game, literally and financially. Trust the take or don't. The asterisk is just there to see. For the full set of takes behind every score, open each product's card or browse all of the reviewers we track.

Why this is suddenly everywhere

Ten years ago, beauty creators mostly made money from ads and sponsorships, reviewing other people's stuff. Now the biggest ones launch their own. Starting a brand has become the dream exit: Rhode, Rare Beauty, Fenty, and a long list of dermatologist- and esthetician-founded lines all launched off an audience that already trusted the founder's taste. That trust is the business. Which is also exactly what makes a founder reviewing their own product tricky: the person best placed to recommend it is the person who profits most when people believe them.

The case for trusting a founder (and the case for the asterisk)

There is a fair argument on both sides, which is why we flag instead of judge. For it: dermatologist- and chemist-founders often understand their formulas better than anyone, built them to fix a gap they kept running into, and put their professional name on the line. Against it: all that expertise doesn't erase the paycheck, and it is easy to hear a founder's excitement as a neutral expert verdict when it is also an ad for their own company. Both can be true at once. So we don't pick a side. We just make the incentive visible and let people weigh it.

Is reviewing your own brand even allowed?

Yep, and there are rules. In the US, the FTC says any "material connection" between a reviewer and a product has to be clearly disclosed, and owning the brand is about as material as it gets. Most founders are pretty open about it. The grayer zone is the softer stuff, like a dermatologist casually name-dropping their own product in an "educational" video without reminding anyone they own it. The FTC's endorsement guides spell out the same disclosure question that covers the other things we track around the site (paid sponsorships, affiliate links, free PR boxes). Founder ownership is just the bluntest version of one question: what does this person get if people believe them?

How do you read a founder's review like a pro?

• Separate the facts from the hype. A specific, checkable claim ("it uses polyglutamic acid to pull water into the skin") is worth more than a vibe ("I'm obsessed").
• Look for outside fans. Does it score well in independent reviews, not just the founder's? Several of these do, and that is the difference between a harmless conflict and a real problem.
• Side-eye the comparisons. Be most skeptical when a founder ranks their own product above named rivals.
• Remember they get paid forever. Unlike a one-off sponsorship, a founder earns on every single sale, for good. That asterisk never expires.

That is the whole idea behind the Founder Conflict badge. No one has to distrust these reviewers, and the Index isn't telling anyone to. It just surfaces the asterisk a usual feed quietly hides. For the logic behind every score, see how The Guru Index works.