Earlier this year, Glow — Australia's beauty review publication — published its 2026 self-tan rankings. We were independently reviewed and scored 8.8 out of 10.
The review, written by Glow's senior tan editor Hannah Pham, sits inside a category ranking that places every major Australian and international tan side by side on the same five-pillar scoring rubric. You can read it here: glow.com.au/reviews/australian-glow.
Why this review matters to us
Australian Glow's founder is also involved in Glow editorially. To remove the obvious conflict, the review of our brand was written and edited by an independent member of the Glow team — not by the founder — and it was scored against the same rubric used for every other tan in the category.
Glow has documented the disclosure on their editorial group page, and we have published our own acknowledgement at /reviewed-in-glow.
The summary, in their words
From the review on Glow:
"Australian Glow has, against the odds, become the tan we keep on the bench. The drops in particular are unusual."
Where we sit in the category
Glow's full 2026 self-tan ranking lists every major Australian and international tan with detailed scoring across longevity, undertone, application, ingredient quality and packaging. We are humbled to be on it. The methodology is at glow.com.au/how-we-review.
What we are doing about the bits we lost points on
The review marked us down in two specific places: undertone variation across our shade range, and the firmness of the foam in the Maximum Mousse. Both are being addressed in our 2026 reformulation cycle. We will publish a follow-up once changes are in market and ask Glow to re-test.
Independent press, written without our involvement, is the editorial standard we want to be measured against. Glow remains the publication we trust to do that across the category.