A custom sunscreen manufacturer should be evaluated on formulation experience, SPF/UVA testing, regulatory knowledge, batch control, packaging compatibility, MOQ, and scale-up records. In the U.S., sunscreen is regulated as an OTC drug, and water-resistance claims must be supported for either 40 or 80 minutes. ISO 24444:2019 provides an internationally recognized method for in-vivo SPF determination, while ISO 22716:2007 covers cosmetic GMP practices. Ask who owns the formula, which tests are included, how failed SPF results are handled, and whether production batches are made under documented specifications. A low unit quote matters less when SPF retesting, packaging failure, or reformulation adds months and additional cost.
Start with the markets where the sunscreen will actually be sold. A manufacturer producing for the United States needs a different compliance workflow from one supplying products under European cosmetic rules. In the U.S., broad-spectrum sunscreens with SPF 15 or higher may carry certain skin-cancer and early-skin-aging risk-reduction claims when the required directions are followed; products outside those conditions have narrower permitted claims.
That market choice should lead directly into the UV-filter system. Mineral products commonly use zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, or both, while other markets permit broader combinations of organic UV filters. Ask the formulator to explain why each filter is present, its concentration range, oil-phase requirements, dispersion method, and compatibility with pigments, film formers, preservatives, and fragrance rather than presenting only a finished INCI list.
A high-SPF target is not enough by itself because SPF mainly describes protection against erythema-producing ultraviolet exposure. ISO 24444:2019 specifies an in-vivo SPF determination method and was confirmed as current by ISO in 2026; an amendment was published in 2022. A supplier quoting SPF 50 before formal testing may have an internal estimate, but the commercial claim should be based on the applicable validated test method.
Ask for the laboratory name, test protocol, sample identification, batch number, test date, measured SPF, UVA result, and complete signed report. A one-line statement saying “SPF 50 passed” gives very little information for regulatory files or future batch investigations.
Testing also shows whether the manufacturer understands claim wording. Under current FDA rules, water-resistant sunscreen must state either 40 or 80 minutes rather than “waterproof.” The 40-minute procedure includes two 20-minute water-immersion periods separated by drying periods; the 80-minute procedure extends the sequence to four immersion-drying cycles.
Once the testing route is clear, look at the actual formula development process. Ask how many sunscreen prototypes are normally required before formal SPF testing and whether the development fee includes 2, 3, or 5 revisions. A manufacturer should record every version so a change from 3% of one emollient to 5%, for example, is tied to a specific sample code rather than handled through informal notes.
Small adjustments matter because sunscreen performance depends on the complete film formed on the skin. Changing an emulsifier, thickener, oil, powder dispersion, or film former can alter spread, uniformity, drying, and resistance to water. A manufacturer should therefore avoid treating a previously tested SPF result as automatically applicable after a meaningful formulation change.
The same discipline should continue during scale-up. A 1 kg laboratory sample and a 500 kg production batch do not experience identical mixing, heating, cooling, shear, deaeration, and transfer conditions. Ask for the planned batch size, homogenization range, target temperature window, mixing sequence, bulk hold limit, and in-process checks used before filling.
| Area to review | Useful information to request |
|---|---|
| Formula development | Prototype codes, revision history, target viscosity, pH and appearance |
| SPF/UVA work | Laboratory report, method, batch number and test date |
| Production | Batch size, mixing time, temperature limits and in-process checks |
| Quality control | Raw-material COAs, finished specifications and release records |
| Packaging | Compatibility protocol, leakage checks and dispensing assessment |
| Commercial terms | MOQ, lead time, testing fees, tooling and formula ownership |
Those production records become more useful when the factory follows a formal GMP system. ISO 22716:2007 covers production, control, storage, and shipment of cosmetic products and remained current after ISO review. Ask how raw materials are quarantined, sampled, released, labeled, stored, and traced rather than accepting “GMP factory” as a complete answer.
Traceability should reach individual raw-material lots. If a sunscreen contains 18 ingredients and one UV-filter lot is later investigated, the manufacturer should be able to identify which finished batches used it, when those batches were produced, their QC results, and where they were shipped. The same system should retain production deviations and approved corrective records.
Raw-material control naturally leads to supplier-change control. Ask whether the factory can replace an emollient, emulsifier, UV-filter grade, zinc oxide dispersion, preservative, pigment, or fragrance without written brand approval. Even when two materials share the same INCI name, differences in carrier, coating, particle characteristics, purity, or supplier specification can affect a finished formula.
Packaging needs similar control because sunscreen spends most of its commercial life in direct contact with the pack. A formula stable for 12 weeks in a laboratory jar may behave differently in a printed tube, airless pump, stick component, or spray system. Compatibility work should use the intended commercial package and assess leakage, deformation, discoloration, odor, weight loss, dispensing, and visible formula changes.
For mineral sunscreen, dispensing deserves extra attention. High powder content and higher viscosity can increase the force needed to move product through a pump or narrow nozzle, while settling can change the first and last doses from a package. Request filled-pack samples from a pilot or production-scale run instead of judging packaging only with an empty component.
The manufacturer's broader skincare capability can still provide useful manufacturing context. A factory producing emulsions, serums, cleansers, and private label eye cream may already have controlled filling lines and experience with sensitive cosmetic textures, but sunscreen-specific SPF testing and regulatory work should be assessed separately. A good moisturizer manufacturing record does not replace sunscreen performance data.
From packaging, move to stability because the two are usually assessed together. Ask for the storage conditions, evaluation intervals, package configuration, and measured parameters. A useful program can include ambient storage, elevated temperature, low temperature, freeze-thaw cycling, appearance, odor, viscosity, pH, package weight, and microbiological observations rather than relying only on photographs after 30 days.
Shelf-life discussions should also separate accelerated observations from real-time data. A supplier may use several months of elevated-temperature screening to support development decisions, but it should explain how the proposed 24- or 36-month shelf life is established and whether retained commercial batches continue through real-time monitoring.
Microbiological control follows naturally for water-containing emulsions. Ask whether finished-product microbial limits and preservative efficacy are tested, who performs the work, and whether the test sample comes from the final formula in the intended packaging. Preservative performance can change when pH, surfactants, botanical materials, or packaging conditions change.
Manufacturing hygiene is part of the same review. Request information on purified-water control, vessel cleaning, line clearance, environmental procedures, filling-line sanitation, and handling of opened raw materials. A factory should be able to show documented procedures and records from recent production rather than describing cleanliness only through sales materials.
Commercial pricing should be reviewed after technical requirements are defined. A unit quotation of $2.20 can become more expensive than a $2.60 quotation if it excludes SPF testing, UVA testing, compatibility work, cartons, printing, freight, stability samples, or reformulation. Build a landed project comparison using the same assumptions for every supplier.
-
Formula and sample-development fees
-
SPF, UVA and water-resistance testing fees
-
Stability and microbiological testing
-
Primary packaging and decoration
-
Cartons, inserts and assembly
-
MOQ for formula and MOQ for packaging
-
Production and filling charges
-
Freight, storage and inspection
-
Retesting fees if the first SPF target is missed
MOQ also needs context. A factory may offer 3,000 finished units while the custom tube supplier requires 10,000 printed tubes, leaving 7,000 components in storage. Ask separately for bulk MOQ, filling MOQ, packaging MOQ, carton MOQ, reorder quantity, annual storage fees, and the period after which unused components must be collected or discarded.
Capacity becomes the next question once the first order is commercially workable. Request normal lead time and available monthly output for the product format. A supplier comfortable with a 5,000-unit first order should also explain what changes if annual demand reaches 100,000 or 500,000 units, including equipment, batch size, raw-material lead times, and packaging supply.
Formula ownership should be settled before paying substantial development fees. The manufacturing agreement should state whether the brand owns the composition, whether the formula is exclusive, whether the manufacturer can sell a similar base to another client, and whether production can be transferred to another facility later.
Do not assume a development fee purchases complete formula ownership. Ask whether the brand receives full percentages, only the INCI declaration, or no manufacturing formula at all, and place the agreed terms in the contract before commercial testing begins.
Change control belongs in the same contract. If a raw-material supplier discontinues an ingredient in 2027, the manufacturer should notify the brand before replacing it and explain whether the change requires new stability, compatibility, SPF, UVA, or water-resistance work. The agreement should also define who pays for testing caused by supplier-driven substitutions.
Before placing the purchase order, review one completed manufacturing record, one finished-product specification, one SPF report, one stability-report format, and one certificate of analysis with confidential client information removed. Five representative documents often reveal more about factory organization than a long presentation filled with equipment photographs.
A final pre-production sample should then match an agreed specification for appearance, odor, color, viscosity range, pH where relevant, fill weight, packaging, print position, coding, dispensing, and carton assembly. Retain signed reference samples from the approved batch so later deliveries can be compared against the same physical standard rather than relying on memory or photographs.