Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide vs numbuzin No. 9 NAD Bio Lifting-sil Essence
Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide scores 9.3/9.8 vs numbuzin No. 9 NAD Bio Lifting-sil Essence at 8.9/9.8. Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide wins for active ingredients.
Head to head
Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide
No. 9 NAD Bio Lifting-sil Essence
Score comparison
Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide edges ahead, winning 3 of 5 attributes.
Scores last verified: July 2026
Attribute battle
Hydration Efficacy
numbuzin WINSIrritation Risk
TIEActive Ingredient Strength
numbuzin WINSIngredient Transparency
numbuzin WINSFormulation Safety
TIEIngredient face-off
16% overlapOnly in Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide
27 unique
Shared ingredients
12 in common
Only in numbuzin No. 9 NAD Bio Lifting-sil Essence
64 unique
Why Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide comes out ahead
Where Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide really shines is active ingredient strength, scoring 7.7 compared to numbuzin No. 9 NAD Bio Lifting-sil Essence's 9.0. Its formula features Niacinamide, Acetyl Dipeptide-1 Cetyl Ester, and Adenosine in high positions, signalling meaningful concentrations.
Hydration Efficacy is another area of separation. numbuzin No. 9 NAD Bio Lifting-sil Essence scores 9.8 here versus 9.4 for Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide. That difference comes down to how each formula is built — the ingredient list tells the story.
Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide brings Niacinamide, Acetyl Dipeptide-1 Cetyl Ester, and Adenosine as actives, while numbuzin No. 9 NAD Bio Lifting-sil Essence relies on Niacinamide, Adenosine, and Tocopherol. Both approaches have merit, but the positioning and supporting ingredients make the difference.
Best for your skin type
Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide is better if you have
- Sensitive skin — the low-irritation formula keeps things gentle
- Dry or dehydrated skin that craves moisture, thanks to Glycerin
- Targeting specific concerns like aging or uneven tone — Niacinamide does the heavy lifting
numbuzin No. 9 NAD Bio Lifting-sil Essence is better if you have
- Sensitive skin — the low-irritation formula keeps things gentle
- Dry or dehydrated skin that craves moisture, thanks to Glycerin
- Targeting specific concerns like aging or uneven tone — Niacinamide does the heavy lifting
Value comparison
At premium pricing with a score of 9.3, Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide delivers strong value. numbuzin No. 9 NAD Bio Lifting-sil Essence sits at the mid-range level with a 8.9 score — the extra cost doesn't translate to better scores here.
Our verdict
Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide edges ahead with a slightly stronger formulation, but numbuzin No. 9 NAD Bio Lifting-sil Essence is still a solid pick.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better: Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide or numbuzin No. 9 NAD Bio Lifting-sil Essence?
Based on ingredient analysis, Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide scores higher overall. See the full score breakdown above for details on each attribute.
Do Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide and numbuzin No. 9 NAD Bio Lifting-sil Essence share ingredients?
Yes, they share common ingredients. Check the ingredient face-off section above for a detailed comparison.
What's the main difference between Kiehl's Since 1851 Micro-Dose Anti-Aging Retinol Serum with Ceramides & Peptide and numbuzin No. 9 NAD Bio Lifting-sil Essence?
The key differences are in their active ingredients and formulation approach. Check the attribute battle above for a detailed breakdown.