Kiehl's Since 1851 Ultra Facial Refillable Moisturizing Cream with Squalane vs SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer
SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer scores 9.1/9.8 vs Kiehl's Since 1851 Ultra Facial Refillable Moisturizing Cream with Squalane at 6.8/9.8. SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer wins for hydration.
Head to head
Ultra Facial Refillable Moisturizing Cream with Squalane
Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer
Score comparison
SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer takes this one, winning 3 of 5 attributes.
Scores last verified: July 2026
Attribute battle
Hydration Efficacy
SOFIE PAVITT FACE WINSIrritation Risk
TIEActive Ingredient Strength
SOFIE PAVITT FACE WINSIngredient Transparency
TIEFormulation Safety
SOFIE PAVITT FACE WINSIngredient face-off
12% overlapOnly in Kiehl's Since 1851 Ultra Facial Refillable Moisturizing Cream with Squalane
29 unique
Shared ingredients
4 in common
Only in SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer
21 unique
Why SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer comes out ahead
Where SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer really shines is hydration efficacy, scoring 9.5 compared to Kiehl's Since 1851 Ultra Facial Refillable Moisturizing Cream with Squalane's 6.3. With Methylpropanediol, Butylene Glycol, and Glycerin in its top ingredients, SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer delivers stronger moisture-binding capability.
Active Ingredient Strength is another area of separation. SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer scores 4.7 here versus 2.2 for Kiehl's Since 1851 Ultra Facial Refillable Moisturizing Cream with Squalane. That difference comes down to how each formula is built — the ingredient list tells the story.
SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer brings Centella Asiatica Extract, Arginine, and Copper Pca as actives, while kiehl's Since 1851 Ultra Facial Refillable Moisturizing Cream with Squalane relies on Tocopherol, Pseudoalteromonas Ferment Extract, and Hydroxypalmitoyl Sphinganine. Both approaches have merit, but the positioning and supporting ingredients make the difference.
Best for your skin type
Kiehl's Since 1851 Ultra Facial Refillable Moisturizing Cream with Squalane is better if you have
- Sensitive skin — the low-irritation formula keeps things gentle
- Anyone who prefers clean, well-vetted formulations
SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer is better if you have
- Sensitive skin — the low-irritation formula keeps things gentle
- Dry or dehydrated skin that craves moisture, thanks to Methylpropanediol
- Anyone who prefers clean, well-vetted formulations
Value comparison
At mid-range pricing with a score of 6.8, Kiehl's Since 1851 Ultra Facial Refillable Moisturizing Cream with Squalane is a decent pick. SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer sits at the premium level with a 9.1 score — the higher investment pays off in formulation quality.
Our verdict
SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer wins this comparison with a meaningfully stronger ingredient profile and overall score.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better: Kiehl's Since 1851 Ultra Facial Refillable Moisturizing Cream with Squalane or SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer?
Based on ingredient analysis, SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer scores higher overall. See the full score breakdown above for details on each attribute.
Do Kiehl's Since 1851 Ultra Facial Refillable Moisturizing Cream with Squalane and SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer 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 Ultra Facial Refillable Moisturizing Cream with Squalane and SOFIE PAVITT FACE Skin Jelly Oil-Free Gel Moisturizer?
The key differences are in their active ingredients and formulation approach. Check the attribute battle above for a detailed breakdown.