Direct answer: The evidence for Bidens pilosa as a retinol alternative is promising but limited. The most relevant recent published study tested Bidens pilosa together with andrographolide, so its human results cannot be assigned to Bidens alone. It is more accurate to call Bidens an emerging plant-derived cosmetic alternative than a clinically equivalent replacement for retinol.
The question needs a precise definition
“Works like retinol” can mean several different things:
- It activates the same receptor or gene pathway in a laboratory model.
- It changes a measured skin property in people.
- Users report a similar appearance after a set period.
- It matches retinol in a controlled head-to-head trial.
- It gives the same result with fewer adverse effects.
These are not interchangeable claims. A laboratory mechanism can justify further research, but it does not guarantee a visible result. A consumer questionnaire can capture meaningful experience, but it is not the same as blinded instrumental measurement.
What the 2025 study tested
The paper “Improvement of Skin Condition Through RXR Alpha-Activating Materials” explored a strategy focused on retinoid X receptor alpha, or RXR-alpha. The researchers reported that combined treatment with andrographolide and Bidens pilosa extract activated RXR-alpha-related activity in laboratory work. They also reported human improvements in wrinkles, elasticity and hydration for their tested materials.
Three limitations matter for consumers:
- It was a combination: Bidens pilosa was not the only active material.
- It was not a retinol-equivalence trial: the study did not establish that a Bidens product matches a conventional retinol product.
- Formula transfer is limited: results from the tested material do not automatically apply to every product containing the plant.
The study supports interest in the ingredient. It does not support the sentence “Bidens pilosa is proven to work exactly like retinol.”
How this differs from the bakuchiol evidence
Bakuchiol is often mentioned in the same conversation, but it is a different molecule. A 2019 randomised, double-blind study compared 0.5% bakuchiol twice daily with 0.5% retinol once daily for 12 weeks in 44 participants. That is direct comparative evidence for those tested formulas and schedule.
Using that bakuchiol study to validate Bidens pilosa would be like using evidence for one vitamin C derivative to prove another. They may share a marketing category, but they are not the same ingredient.
How to read a product study
Before relying on a percentage such as “85% saw smoother skin,” check:
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Was the exact finished product tested? | Ingredient evidence may not predict the full formula |
| How many people took part? | Very small groups produce less stable estimates |
| How long did the study last? | Hydration may change sooner than pigmentation or fine lines |
| Was there a comparison or control? | Baseline improvement alone cannot separate formula effect from other factors |
| Who measured the result? | Instrument, clinician grading and participant opinion answer different questions |
| Was the study blinded or independently published? | Design and independence affect confidence |
| Were adverse effects reported? | “Gentle” requires tolerability information, not only positive outcomes |
What Selfnamed reports for this formula
Selfnamed's published product-study information for the Retinol Alternative Serum reports that:
- 85% reported more hydrated skin;
- 85% reported smoother-looking skin and improved texture;
- 80% reported more radiant-looking skin;
- 70% reported minimised pigmentation and reduced blemish appearance;
- 65% reported a reduction in wrinkle appearance.
These are Selfnamed study figures, not universal outcomes. Individual results vary. To interpret them fully, consumers should also be given the sample size, duration, assessment method, comparator and study sponsor. The figures should not be presented as proof that Bidens alone caused every result or that the product equals retinol.
What we can responsibly conclude
The available information supports four cautious conclusions:
- Bidens pilosa is not chemically retinol.
- Research offers plausible biological and cosmetic reasons to study it further.
- Current published evidence is smaller and less direct than the retinol evidence base.
- A finished Bidens formula should be assessed on its own composition, product data, tolerance and use experience.
That may sound less exciting than a miracle claim. It is also more useful when deciding what to put on your skin.
Where LÉVOJU Retinol Alternative Serum fits
LÉVOJU Retinol Alternative Serum contains 2% Bidens pilosa and is formulated to support smoother, more radiant-looking skin and improve the appearance of fine lines, texture, dark spots and blemishes. Its hydrating and nourishing components are part of the finished-product experience.
Choose it as a distinct COSMOS Natural plant-derived formula, not because the word “alternative” guarantees retinol-equivalent performance.
Start with What Is Bidens Pilosa? for the ingredient overview or compare the three categories in Bidens Pilosa vs Bakuchiol vs Retinol.
Frequently asked questions
Is there a head-to-head Bidens pilosa and retinol trial?
The cited RXR-alpha study does not provide the kind of direct Bidens-only versus retinol comparison needed to claim equivalence.
Do Selfnamed's percentages mean I will get the same result?
No. They describe outcomes reported in the referenced product study. Individual skin, routines and results vary.
Is “clinically proven” the same as “clinically equivalent to retinol”?
No. A product can be studied clinically without being compared with retinol. The exact study design and endpoint must support the exact claim.
Sources
- PubMed: Improvement of Skin Condition Through RXR Alpha-Activating Materials
- PubMed: Randomised double-blind bakuchiol and retinol comparison
- PubMed: Bakuchiol systematic review
Evidence review for consumer education; not medical advice. Last reviewed 2 September 2026.