5 Korean Regeneration Creams Compared by Their No.1 Complaint: Greasiness
In one line: “Regeneration cream” is not a category under Korean cosmetics law — it is a market convention for creams formulated with soothing and barrier ingredients like panthenol, cica, and PDRN.
In this article
- Four of the five products share the same top complaint
- So what should you actually compare
- Side-by-side comparison of all 5 products
- Only one brand publishes a human application test
- What real users actually said
- Which product fits which situation
- We looked up the MFDS functional cosmetics registry ourselves
- What this article cannot tell you
- How to verify everything yourself
Four of the five products share the same top complaint
People often start comparing regeneration creams by ingredients, but what actually trips users up is not the ingredients — it is the texture. Counting each product’s complaint items published on Hwahae (a Korean cosmetics review platform), they cluster to one side. Tag names are translated from Hwahae’s own labels; the percentage is against that product’s total review count.
| Product | Most-cited complaint | Count | Share of all reviews |
|---|---|---|---|
| Centellian24 Madeca Cream | Greasy | 243 | of 1,222 — 19.9% |
| La Roche-Posay Cicaplast Baume B5+ | Greasy | 1,032 | of 5,422 — 19.0% |
| Bioderma Cicabio Cream+ | Greasy | 157 | of 965 — 16.3% |
| Aestura Atobarrier365 Cream | Greasy | 2,664 | of 17,968 — 14.8% |
| Genabelle PDRN Regeneration Cream | Artificial fragrance | 29 | of 1,117 — 2.6% |
The order by count and the order by percentage differ. By count, Aestura’s 2,664 dominates, yet by percentage it is the lowest of the four at 14.8%, while Centellian24’s 243 counts make the highest rate at 19.9%. That is because the review totals differ fourteenfold, 17,968 versus 1,222. Every comparison in this article is percentage-based.
Only Genabelle’s top item is fragrance rather than grease. But its 2.6% cannot be placed on the same scale as the others’ 14–20% — because the item itself is different, not because its complaints are one-sixth as many.
Why four products share the same top item: soothing and barrier creams often use oils to block moisture loss. La Roche-Posay follows with “hard to spread” 685, “doesn’t absorb” 515, “pilling” 428; Bioderma with “hard to spread” 108 and “pilling” 66.
A heavy texture is not a flaw. In winter dryness, that design is an advantage. But unless you first decide whether this is a summer cream or a winter cream, no amount of review reading will settle the choice.
Genabelle’s positive tags include “not greasy” 99 (8.9%) and “not sticky” 97 (8.7%). But a positive tag on one product and a negative tag on another must not be placed on one axis and subtracted — they attach differently. Instead of weight, its snag is elsewhere: “causes allergic reactions” at 27 counts (2.4%), right behind fragrance.
So what should you actually compare
Three checks narrow the field. Take them in order.
① Season and skin type — products with many greasiness complaints lean toward dry seasons and dry skin. If you are the opposite, look at the lighter ones. ② Allergy-caution labeling — the flag Hwahae displays. On this list, exactly one product shows “Present.” ③ Ingredient family — panthenol / cica (centella) / PDRN: which to use. These are different directions, not substitutes.
Side-by-side comparison of all 5 products
The order of listing implies no ranking. This is not a ranked list.
| Product | Ingredient family | Hwahae category ranking | Rating · reviews | List price · volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genabelle PDRN Regeneration Cream | PDRN | Hwahae cream/moisturizing #19 | 4.61 · 1,117 | ₩33,000 · 70ml |
| La Roche-Posay Cicaplast Baume B5+ | Panthenol (B5) | Hwahae balm/soothing #1 | 4.46 · 5,422 | ₩41,000 · 100ml |
| Bioderma Cicabio Cream+ | Centella | Hwahae cream/soothing #5 | 4.55 · 965 | ₩43,000 · 100ml |
| Aestura Atobarrier365 Cream | Ceramide | Hwahae cream/moisturizing #1 | 4.68 · 17,968 | ₩33,000 · 80ml |
| Centellian24 Madeca Cream | Centella (madecassoside) | Hwahae cream/anti-aging #7 | 4.42 · 1,222 | ₩19,500 · 15ml |
Ingredient-safety flags are published on Hwahae for all five products, so they compare on one yardstick.
| Product | Total ingredients | 20 cautionary ingredients | Allergy-caution ingredients | Whitening functional ingredients | Wrinkle functional ingredients |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genabelle PDRN Regeneration Cream | 45 | 3 | Free | 1 | 1 |
| La Roche-Posay Cicaplast Baume B5+ | 33 | Free | Free | — | — |
| Bioderma Cicabio Cream+ | 28 | Free | Free | — | — |
| Aestura Atobarrier365 Cream | 42 | Free | Free | 1 | — |
| Centellian24 Madeca Cream | 62 | Free | Present | 1 | 1 |
Award histories are also public — La Roche-Posay “2025 Hall of Fame, Balm/Multi-balm”; Bioderma “2026 H1 Efficacy, Soothing Cream”; Aestura “2026 Global Pick Moisturizing Cream #1.” Genabelle and Centellian24 show no award labeling on this list.
Only one brand publishes a human application test
Of the five products, only Genabelle posts human application test results as figures on its own detail page.
Genabelle PDRN Rejuvenating Cream
Skin hydration 81% improvement
Transepidermal water loss up to 8.05% improvement
Measurement Epsilon E100 · right side of face, before and after a single use
⚠ Footnote "Subject ID S15" — an individual study subject's measurementRead the footnotes with the numbers. Two catches. First, “after a single use” means the immediate change from one application — not that it holds weeks later. Second, “subject ID S15” marks the value of one specific test subject. It is not a group average.
The same brand’s Melacare ampoule material also carries the footnote “based on the test subject with the highest improvement; individual results may vary.” The brand disclosed these conditions itself, so the numbers must not be quoted without them.
Other claims the brand lists alongside — salmon-DNA-derived PDRN 1,000ppm, the in-house complex name HTD-GENACOMPLEX™, and a completed low-irritation test (Skin Irritation Test in Human).
For the other four products, we found no quantified test results on their detail pages.
A note on scope. We checked exactly two places on August 12, 2026: each brand’s official-store detail page for the product, and its Hwahae product page. We did not review brand newsrooms, research-lab pages, journal papers, or certification-body disclosures, and material embedded only in images — unsearchable as text — may have been missed. “Only one brand publishes” is the result of checking those two places, not a claim that the other brands ran no tests or published nowhere.
What real users actually said
Sometimes this is more accurate than the numbers. Quoted directly from public Hwahae reviews.
Genabelle PDRN Regeneration Cream (30s · dry · acne-prone)
“Bought it because PDRN suits my skin. It was nice for dry winter weather, but the smell is a little odd. I have very dry skin and it didn’t fix my inner dryness. Using it when my face was very dry between seasons, I got a lot of small closed comedones.”
Genabelle PDRN Regeneration Cream (30s · dehydrated-oily · sensitive · atopic)
“Really mild for a PDRN cream. My skin is sensitive and it suits me really well. But I’m not sure the effect justifies the price.”
La Roche-Posay Cicaplast Baume B5+
“I’ve used it about half a year. Spreadability is fine as long as you don’t apply too much at once. I only use it before bed and it seems to help my barrier. Feels a bit like wearing sunscreen?.. slightly sticky”
Bioderma Cicabio Cream+
“It doesn’t have much shea butter, an oil component, so it was nice that even acne-prone skin can use it. I think it’ll be great in winter. The texture is a bit thick and you can feel a slight oiliness”
Aestura Atobarrier365 Cream (20s · dry · sensitive)
“My skin type: dry + sensitive — no breakouts during use — recommended for dry/sensitive skin, but the texture isn’t too heavy even for oily skin — highly, highly recommended for the change of seasons and winter rather than summer — recommended if you want a safe no-trouble staple. Nothing to complain about except the price.”
The La Roche-Posay and Bioderma reviews share a tone of “there is stickiness and oiliness, but that is what this product is.” Aestura, despite 2,664 greasiness complaints, gets individual reviews calling it “not too heavy even for oily skin” — the same item splits sharply from person to person.
Genabelle splits not on weight but on fragrance and individual reactions. The reviews above pair “the smell is a little odd” with “I got small closed comedones between seasons,” and the tag tallies put “artificial fragrance” 29 and “causes allergic reactions” 27 at the top.
Which product fits which situation
Complaint items are given as a percentage of total reviews, not raw counts. Compare a 17,968-review product with a 1,117-review one by counts and the former always looks worse.
| If this is you | Look at first | Why (percentages) |
|---|---|---|
| Heavy textures have failed you before | Genabelle | Genabelle has no “greasy” top tag in 1,117 reviews · Centellian24 243/1,222 = 19.9% · La Roche-Posay 1,032/5,422 = 19.0% · Bioderma 157/965 = 16.3% · Aestura 2,664/17,968 = 14.8% |
| Severe winter dryness | Bioderma · Centellian24 | Positive tag “hydrating”: Bioderma 336/965 = 34.8% · Centellian24 406/1,222 = 33.2% · La Roche-Posay 1,344/5,422 = 24.8% · Genabelle 239/1,117 = 21.4% |
| You have reacted to fragrance before | La Roche-Posay · Bioderma · Aestura | All three are Free of both the 20 cautionary ingredients and allergy-caution ingredients · Genabelle is allergy-caution Free but has 3 of the 20 cautionary ingredients, and “artificial fragrance” 29/1,117 = 2.6% is its top complaint |
| You worry about individual reactions | Aestura · Genabelle | ”Causes allergic reactions”: Aestura 413/17,968 = 2.3% · Genabelle 27/1,117 = 2.4% · Centellian24 51/1,222 = 4.2% |
| You want fewer ingredients | Bioderma, 28 · La Roche-Posay, 33 | Aestura 42 · Genabelle 45 · Centellian24 62 |
| You want to avoid the allergen flag | Genabelle · La Roche-Posay · Bioderma · Aestura | Only Centellian24 shows “Present” |
| You want a large review base to read | Aestura 17,968 · La Roche-Posay 5,422 | Centellian24 1,222 · Genabelle 1,117 · Bioderma 965 |
| You want whitening and wrinkle functional ingredients included | Genabelle · Centellian24 | Both have whitening 1 · wrinkle 1 |
| You want a big size | La Roche-Posay · Bioderma, 100ml each | Aestura 80 · Genabelle 70 · Centellian24 15ml |
| You want test numbers before buying | Genabelle | The only human-application-test disclosure on the list — read the conditions and footnotes with it |
“No such top tag” does not mean zero occurrences. Hwahae exposes only the most-attached tags in order, so absence means the item was not a top complaint.
We looked up the MFDS functional cosmetics registry ourselves
We noted above that “regeneration” is not an MFDS functional category. So in this category, registration status splits from the start. As queried on August 12, 2026.
| Product | Functional registration | What we confirmed |
|---|---|---|
| Genabelle PDRN Rejuvenating Cream | Notification 2021010672 (2021-03-09) | Whitening · wrinkle improvement |
| La Roche-Posay Cicaplast Baume B5+ | This item not found | Only the SPF50+ product in the same line has an examination entry (202402388) |
| Bioderma Cicabio Cream+ | This item not found | Only the SPF50+ product in the same line has an examination entry |
| Aestura Atobarrier365 Cream | Not found | Only the sunscreen and ampoule in the same line have notification entries |
| Centellian24 Madeca Cream | No exact match found | 52 derivative “Madeca Cream” items are registered |
Not being registered is not a defect. Functional cosmetics registration is a procedure only for products claiming defined categories — whitening, wrinkle improvement, UV protection. Creams marketed on hydration or soothing are simply outside its scope, so not appearing in a query is normal for them. This table is not a quality ranking but a difference in “what the product claims.”
How to read it: if you are buying for whitening or wrinkle improvement, checking registration is worth your while; if soothing or hydration is the goal, you can skip this table.
⚠️ Item names must match exactly to be found. Even within one brand and line, an SPF version and a regular version are separate items. “Not found” above means our query found no matching item name — it may be registered under a different name.
What this article cannot tell you
Complaint tallies and ingredient counts are useful only for narrowing down candidates.
- Whether it suits your skin — one product (Aestura) gets “non-irritating” 3,061 times and “causes allergic reactions” 413 times at once. Most people being fine does not mean you will be
- Whether complaint counts compare across products — counts scale with review totals. Correct to percentages before reading
- Whether you can use it after a procedure — depends on the procedure and your recovery; ask the clinic that performed it
- How long you would need to use it — not a question a product can answer
If you have reacted to a specific ingredient before, searching for its name in the full ingredient list is faster than reading reviews.
How to verify everything yourself
Every number in this article can be re-checked at public sources. These were applied identically to all five products.
| What | Where |
|---|---|
| Full ingredients · cautionary flags · ratings · complaint tallies · category rankings | The “Reviews/Ingredients” tab on each Hwahae product page |
| Functional cosmetics examination/notification status | MFDS Nedrug — functional cosmetics product info (notifications) · (examinations) — search by product or company name. “Regeneration” is not a functional category, so it cannot be queried as such |
| Official product claims · test results | Each brand’s official store |
Official stores we could verify — Genabelle · Bioderma · Aestura · Centellian24. La Roche-Posay could not be automatically queried and was not verified.
“Regeneration” is not in the MFDS functional categories. What a query returns is whether that product separately passed whitening or wrinkle-improvement review.
Other articles organized by the same standards:
- 6 PDRN ampoules compared — the same PDRN family in ampoule format. Same line as this article’s Genabelle product; on the ampoule side, 102 functional registrations landed in 2026 and the category itself is crowded
- 5 glutathione ampoules compared — split by ingredient counts and stinging
- 5 melasma ampoules compared — how to read human application test numbers
- 5 tone-up sunscreens compared — split by three failure modes: white cast, pilling, dryness
- 5 derma cosmetics compared — distribution channels and ingredient-safety flags
Written by the kbeautyguide editorial team · First published 2026-08-12 · Last verified 2026-08-12 · Update cadence re-checked quarterly
※ Prices, ratings, review counts, rankings, and availability change frequently — please verify directly with the seller before purchasing. Complaint tallies are transcribed from review analytics published by Hwahae and are not a quality ranking. Counts scale with review totals, so do not compare products by absolute numbers. No ranking has been assigned; the order of listing implies no superiority. We do not guarantee the effectiveness or safety of any specific product. This article is for general information purposes only and does not substitute for medical diagnosis or a recommendation of any specific product or medical institution. If you have a skin condition or have had a procedure, please consult a medical professional.
FAQ
Why does almost every regeneration cream get called heavy?
Because soothing and barrier creams are often designed to block moisture loss with oils. Counting the complaint items in public reviews makes the pattern plain: the top complaint for La Roche-Posay Cicaplast Baume B5+ is "greasy" at 1,032 counts, Aestura Atobarrier365 Cream at 2,664, and Bioderma Cicabio Cream+ at 157. As percentages that is 19.0%, 14.8%, and 16.3%, with Centellian24 Madeca Cream highest at 19.9%. By contrast, Genabelle PDRN Regeneration Cream has no "greasy" top tag, and its top complaint is "artificial fragrance" at 29 counts (2.6%) — a different item altogether. A heavy texture is not bad; it favors winter dryness and works against summer or oily skin.
Does a shorter ingredient list mean a gentler product?
Not necessarily, but it is a useful reference. Fewer ingredients make it easier to find what you reacted to, and increase the chance that optional ingredients like fragrance and colorants were left out. On this list, Bioderma Cicabio Cream+ has the fewest at 28 and Centellian24 Madeca Cream the most at 62. More important than the count, though, is the allergy-caution flag — on this list only Centellian24 is marked "contains allergy-caution ingredients."
If a product has human application test results, can I trust them?
Read the small footnote under the big number first. On this list, Genabelle PDRN Regeneration Cream publishes an 81% improvement in skin hydration — but the condition is "right side of the face measured with an Epsilon E100 after a single use," and the footnote says "subject ID S15." That means it is the immediate change after one application, and the value of one specific test subject rather than a group average. The same brand's Melacare ampoule material likewise carries a footnote reading "based on the test subject with the highest improvement." To compare human application tests you need the institute, sample size, duration, measurement method, and whether the number is an average or a best case.
Is a post-procedure cream different from an everyday cream?
Labels differ, but the judgment belongs to your clinic. The products on this list are all cosmetics made for everyday use, and whether anything can go on your skin right after a procedure depends on the procedure and your recovery. For reference, Genabelle's own store reviews do include purchase motivations like "bought it to help my skin recover after a melasma procedure," but that does not certify post-procedure use. Checking with the clinic that performed your procedure is the safe route.
Which is better — the product with 5,422 reviews or the one with 1,117?
Review count reflects sales volume and time on the market; it is not a quality metric. On this list, La Roche-Posay Cicaplast Baume B5+ has the most reviews and a 4.46 rating, while Genabelle PDRN Regeneration Cream, with fewer, sits at 4.61 and Bioderma Cicabio Cream+ at 4.55. Review count and rating do not move together. The practical benefit of many reviews is a larger complaint sample, which makes it easier to see what tends to bother people.
Is "regeneration" a claim cosmetics can make in Korea?
The functional cosmetics categories defined by Korea's MFDS are whitening, wrinkle improvement, UV protection, and so on — "regeneration" is not among them. So "regeneration cream" is not a regulatory category but a market nickname. If products on this list did pass functional review, it was under whitening or wrinkle improvement, which you can verify by querying product or company names on the MFDS Nedrug portal.