Reva/For investors

for investors

We built the honest one.

The apps people use to check what's in their skincare score by fear instead of the dose, and never show you the working. Reva is the opposite, built in Australia: a validated ingredient graph, a free app that reads a label straight, and an API that sells that same honesty to everyone else building in beauty.

the opening

A big, anxious market waiting for someone to be right.

Clean beauty is a real market with a real trust problem it can't fix from the inside. Grand View puts it at $10.5 billion in 2025, on track to $35.3 billion by 2033. Six in ten shoppers now read the ingredient list before they buy. And the incumbents they reach for, from Yuka to the EWG, score by hazard in isolation rather than real-world risk - an approach most surveyed toxicologists say overstates chemical risk.

Australia makes the gap sharper. A global app flags an Australian SPF 50 as poison, on a continent where two in three people get skin cancer and daily sunscreen cut invasive melanoma by 73%. Getting it wrong here is a health risk, not just a bad score. That's the opening, and nobody credible is standing in it.

$10.5B
clean-beauty market in 2025, on track to $35.3B by 2033.
Grand View · 16.8% CAGR
33%
of Australian women name full ingredient transparency a top driver of brand trust, behind only affordable pricing.
Ideally · Beauty Belief Gap, 2026
16/20
sunscreens failed independent SPF testing in 2025. The trust vacuum Reva fills.
CHOICE, 2025

the shape of it

One graph, two ways to sell it.

The app, free

The main event, and free forever. It reads a whole routine rather than one scary number, and it wins reach and trust at close to zero marginal cost.

The API, charge-on-match

The revenue engine. Every other beauty app, brand and AI that needs honest ingredient data can buy ours, and they only pay when we return a real, cited answer.

The graph, the moat

Underneath both sits a validated safety graph; dose-aware, cited on every field, and the only one built on Australia's actual rules.

why it holds

The score isn't the moat. Being right over time is.

Anyone can ship a score. What they can't be is current, and that's the whole game. Our agents track every regulator change and every quiet reformulation, so the data stays alive and provably honest; every field carries a signed card a brand can embed but can't twist into something scarier. Add the Australian rules global apps can't model, and I reckon it's a lead that widens rather than erodes.

Current

Agents sit on the CosIng, TGA, AICIS, CIR and FDA feeds. A rule changes, and the score follows, dated.

Un-copyable

Signed provenance on every field; embeddable, verifiable, and impossible to re-skin into a scarier verdict.

Validated, not asserted

The graph is benchmarked against a 1,500-ingredient golden set, adjudicated by toxicologists to a Gwet's AC2 of 0.80. Being right is the product.

how it pays

A free app, funded by a matched API.

The app stays free because that is what earns the reach and the trust; the API pays for the graph it runs on. We bill charge-on-match: you pay only for an answer you can act on, and a miss costs you nothing. That keeps our incentive on coverage, not on running up your bill. The tiers run free, then $49, then $199 a month, and above that a subscription beats metered overage.

Free

for a first build

$0

Pro

most popular

$49/mo

Business

for scale

$199/mo

where it is

Built in the open, honestly.

The research the graph rests on is executed; what is left before any public accuracy claim is a legal pass and an adversarial fact-check, not more research. The app, the API and the ingestion pipeline run as one codebase. You can watch the plan on the roadmap. We would rather move slowly and stay honest; being right is what gates everything else.

See the roadmap

who's behind it

Luke Rhodes

I'm a founder and engineer, and I mostly build things from scratch. At Fledgeling I make fast, AI-native tools for people building from nothing; editors and engines where your work stays in plain text you own, nothing is a black box, and the AI can draft all it likes while you stay the editor of record. I'm also co-founder of Diolog with Amy Benson, building investor-relations software for listed companies and the retail investors who follow them.

Different surfaces, same conviction: you should be able to check the thing you're trusting.

That conviction is why I started Reva. The apps people use to check their skincare score by fear instead of dose, and they never show their working; it's the exact black box I've spent a career refusing to ship. Watching good products get waved off with a made-up red number bothered me more than it probably should have. Skincare deserved the honest version, and in Australia, where a global app will scare you off the sunscreen that actually saves lives, it deserved one built on the real rules.

So Reva is that same instinct, pointed at what's in the bottle: sourced, dose-aware, and cited on every line. Honesty built as a product, not printed as a slogan.

Every claim, a citation
you can open.
That's the whole product.

Luke Rhodes · founder

Want to talk?

We're building the honest one, and we're happy to show the working. If you back consumer apps or developer infrastructure, get in touch.