Three quotations can all say Potassium Cocoyl Glycinate powder and still leave purchasing with three different sets of numbers. One supplier may publish composition, another salt content, and another moisture plus a complete ingredient declaration.
A larger number does not settle the comparison when the labels measure different things. Put each published value back under its proper definition, mark the missing fields, and compare the grades in the same cleanser at an agreed surfactant contribution.
Start with definitions before percentages
Active matter, assay, composition, solids, moisture and inorganic salt are separate fields. A document that says 100% composition is not automatically reporting the same test as a document that states maximum water or maximum salt. Treating the largest published percentage as the winner is a fast route to a slow qualification project.
Ask each supplier how the value is defined, which method supports it and whether it is a sales description, standard specification or batch result. A COA can show what one supplied lot achieved. It should not silently replace the purchasing specification used for future lots.
The calculation basis also matters. If the suppliers provide comparable active-matter values, normalize dosage and price to one kilogram of active surfactant. If they do not, request the missing method and specification before claiming an equal-active conversion.
Compare the complete material entering the batch
The INCI name identifies the principal surfactant, not every component in the commercial powder. Residual water and inorganic salt can affect delivered surfactant contribution, dissolution, electrolyte balance and the amount of formula space available for other ingredients.
Salt content deserves its own column. Lower salt can be useful in a system with a narrow electrolyte window, but the finished cleanser still contains electrolytes from co-surfactants, neutralization, preservatives and intentional salt addition. A raw-material salt number predicts only one part of that final load.
Moisture belongs beside salt, not inside it. The two may both reduce the mass fraction of the named surfactant, but they can have different effects on storage, handling and formulation. Request both values when they matter to the project.
Public documents rarely use the same comparison fields
A current product page may confirm identity and physical form while reserving detailed specifications for a customer portal. A brochure may publish composition and packaging but omit moisture, salt, pH and addition guidance. Another catalog may promote a salt limit and use level without stating the underlying assay method.
Blank cells are useful here. They tell purchasing what to request. Filling them with a distributor claim or a value from another grade produces a smooth table and a rough supplier change.
Document dates matter too. Keep the revision used for the qualification file, then ask whether a newer TDS or specification supersedes it. Product families with similar codes are especially good at making an old PDF look current.
Build one supplier questionnaire before requesting samples
Send every candidate the same short questionnaire. Ask for the exact commercial name, complete ingredient declaration, defined surfactant or assay specification, water or moisture limit, inorganic salt limit, pH test concentration and method, storage period, pack format and recommended addition route. If a field is not controlled, the useful answer is “not specified,” not a number borrowed from a marketing page.
Separate the documents by purpose. The TDS explains the grade and its handling. The SDS addresses hazard communication and may use concentration ranges that are not purchasing limits. The purchasing specification defines acceptance fields, while the COA reports results for a particular lot. Putting those four documents in one folder does not make their numbers interchangeable.
Also ask which document revision applies to the offered material. A familiar brand code can survive while a specification, manufacturing site or packaging detail changes. Record the revision with the trial sample and quotation so the commercial decision can be traced back to the material that was actually tested.
Finally, agree on what remains confidential. A supplier can often support qualification without receiving a complete formula. Target active contribution, product format, pH window, major co-surfactant types, process constraints and required destination documents are usually a more useful opening packet than an unexplained request for “the best price and full data.”
Published information for the three powder grades
INNO offers KWGCK-95. Ajinomoto currently lists AMILITE® GCK-11 as a powder amino acid-derived anionic surfactant. Sino Lion lists Eversoft™ YCK-100 as a Potassium Cocoyl Glycinate powder with salt no higher than 3%.
| Published field | KWGCK-95 | AMILITE® GCK-11 | Eversoft™ YCK-100 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Named surfactant | Potassium Cocoyl Glycinate | Potassium Cocoyl Glycinate | Potassium Cocoyl Glycinate |
| Published physical form | White solid powder | Powder | Powder |
| Composition or content wording | SDS lists Potassium Cocoyl Glycinate at 93.5 to 100% | 2020 official flyer lists composition at 100.0% | Current official page does not publish an active or composition percentage |
| Published inorganic salt | SDS lists Potassium Chloride at 0 to 1.5% | Not stated in the public product page or 2020 flyer reviewed | Official page states salt no higher than 3% |
| Published moisture or water | TDS states water content at 5% maximum | Not stated in the public product page or 2020 flyer reviewed | Not stated on the official product page reviewed |
| Addition guidance | Disperse in cold water under stirring, then heat | Request current grade guidance | Request current grade guidance |
| Published pack | 15 kg per drum | 15 kg carton in the 2020 official flyer | Not stated on the official product page reviewed |
The Ajinomoto figure comes from its official 2020 GCK-11 flyer. Sino Lion’s current page and 2024 catalog publish the salt limit and use levels. These sources do not establish that composition, active matter and salt were measured on one shared basis.
Run a qualification trial that answers the buying question
Begin with identity and document review. Confirm the exact grade code, full INCI declaration, current TDS and SDS, purchasing specification, representative COA fields, pack and storage conditions. Add country-specific regulatory or certification checks only when the project requires them.
Then prepare the same base with each candidate at an agreed surfactant contribution. Use the same water, temperature history, addition rate, mixing energy and pH sequence. Record the time to a uniform state, appearance after equilibration and any residue on the vessel or screen.
Finish the comparison in the intended formula rather than a surfactant solution alone. Measure stabilized viscosity, foam under one method, rinse feel, package dispensing and the stability conditions required by your project. One powder may dissolve beautifully and still be the wrong choice for the final tube.
Use cost-in-use after the technical shortlist
Once two grades meet the product brief, compare their commercial effect on the same basis. Include active-normalized raw-material cost when the values are genuinely comparable, inward freight, pack utilization, powder charging time, material recovery and any extra thickener or process step supported by the trial.
Do not assign an invented failure rate or presumed labor saving to make one option win. Use the time, yield and formula inputs observed at your site. A quotation belongs in the calculation, but it should not be allowed to grade its own homework.
When KWGCK-95 belongs on the shortlist
KWGCK-95 is a sensible candidate when your team wants a white powder grade with a complete INNO TDS declaration, documented cold-water dispersion route and 15 kg drum. Its current SDS separately lists the named surfactant, water and potassium chloride instead of compressing them into one headline percentage.
That document detail does not prove automatic equivalence to either competitor. It gives the qualification team defined fields to compare. Request the current INNO specification and sample, then place its results beside the incumbent under the same method and finished-formula conditions.
Frequently asked questions
Is a published 100% composition the same as 100% active matter?
Not automatically. Ask for the test definition and method. Composition, assay, active matter, solids, moisture and salt can describe different measurements and should remain in separate columns.
Does lower published salt guarantee easier thickening?
No. Raw-material salt is only one source of electrolyte. Co-surfactants, pH adjustment, preservatives and added salt also shape the finished system’s viscosity response.
Can KWGCK-95 replace AMILITE GCK-11 or Eversoft YCK-100 one for one?
No one-for-one claim is justified from the public documents alone. Compare current specifications, calculate a common surfactant basis and run the intended cleanser through the same process and test plan.
What should a buyer send with a sample request?
Send the incumbent TDS or specification, target active contribution, formula type, pH, batch size, mixing route, annual volume and destination. Remove confidential information that is not needed for selection.
Request the KWGCK-95 qualification pack
Send INNO the current grade under review, the specification fields that matter to your approval process and the intended cleanser format. We can provide the current KWGCK-95 TDS, SDS, representative COA fields and a sample for a matched evaluation.
