PECHION is China’s leading cosmetics brand in 2025 global rankings

• Clear is China’s only cosmetics brand to record a positive brand value growth
• Rejoice is China’s strongest cosmetics brand with AA+ brand strength rating
• Chanel becomes world’s most valuable cosmetics brand in 2025 amid luxury market surge

The combined value of China’s four most valuable cosmetics brands has declined by 14% to USD5.5 billion in 2025, according to the Cosmetics 50 2025 report by Brand Finance, the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy. This decline can be attributed to evolving challenges faced by brands and regulatory developments.

Despite a drop in its brand value by 9% to USD3.0 billion, PECHOIN remains as China’s most valuable cosmetics brand. The brand also ranks among the top 15 most valuable cosmetics brands globally. Brand Finance attributes this to several factors, including consumer confidence and sensitivity around product safety.

Clear (brand value up 13% to USD1.1 billion), ranked 33rd globally, is the only Chinese brand in the rankings to record an increase in brand value, and is China’s second most valuable cosmetics brand. Brand Finance attributes the brand’s growth to having high familiarity and consideration within the Chinese market, alongside steady revenue growth. Its focus on addressing male hair loss issues with targeted solutions and bold creative campaigns such as the “Bald Spots” campaign in Turkey has contributed to its continued momentum.

Rejoice (brand value down 4% to USD909 million) ranks as the third most valuable Chinese brand in the rankings. It also remains as China’s strongest cosmetics brand, with a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score of 77.6/100 and a corresponding AA+ brand strength rating. According to Brand Finance’s research data, Rejoice’s strong familiarity in its home market is a key driver of its brand strength.

Meanwhile, CHANDO (brand value down 56% to USD528 million), previously China’s second most valuable cosmetics brand, has fallen from 32nd to 49th globally. Brand Finance attributes this decline to its packaging quality concerns which impacted consumer confidence.

Scott Chen, Managing Director, Brand Finance China, commented:

’’Chinese cosmetics brands are facing a fast-changing and challenging market, as consumers become more demanding, and regulations continue to tighten. While many brands have felt the impact, those that stay close to their customers, continue to innovate, and build trust, like Clear, are showing it’s still possible to grow. These results are a reminder that brands need to stay adaptable, resilient, and in tune with what people really want to stay competitive in the long run.’’

Cosmetics Sector Global Insights  

Chanel has overtaken L’Oréal to become the world’s most valuable cosmetics brand, ending L’Oréal’s five-year reign at the top of the ranking. Chanel’s brand is valued at USD27.3 billion – more than 1.75 times L’Oréal’s USD15.6 billion, despite it noting a 17% increase this year. Chanel is also the sector’s third strongest brand, with a BSI score of 87.7 out of 100. Brand Finance research highlights Chanel’s performance in reputation and consideration among consumers, particularly in France, Italy, and the UK.

Gillette is the world’s strongest cosmetics brand, earning a BSI score of 89.6 out of 100 and standing as the only brand in the ranking with a AAA+ rating. Brand Finance research shows that Gillette commands strong brand perceptions across most global markets. It scores highly (10 out of 10) for brand knowledge, credibility, and selection, bolstered by the brand’s exposure to target consumers through sponsorship of high-profile sports teams and events like the New York Yankees, the New England Patriots, and the UEFA Champions League.

Brand Finance is the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy. Bridging the gap between marketing and finance, Brand Finance evaluates the strength of brands and quantifies their financial value to help organisations make strategic decisions.

Headquartered in London, Brand Finance operates in over 25 countries. Every year, Brand Finance conducts more than 6,000 brand valuations, supported by original market research, and publishes over 100 reports which rank brands across all sectors and countries.

Brand Finance also operates the Global Brand Equity Monitor, conducting original market research annually on 6,000 brands, surveying more than 175,000 respondents across 41 countries and 31 industry sectors. By combining perceptual data from the Global Brand Equity Monitor with data from its valuation database — the largest brand value database in the world — Brand Finance equips ambitious brand leaders with the data, analytics, and the strategic guidance they need to enhance brand and business value.

In addition to calculating brand value, Brand Finance also determines the relative strength of brands through a balanced scorecard of metrics evaluating marketing investment, stakeholder equity, and business performance, compliant with ISO 20671.

Brand Finance is a regulated accountancy firm and a committed leader in the standardisation of the brand valuation industry. Brand Finance was the first to be certified by independent auditors as compliant with both ISO 10668 and ISO 20671 and has received the official endorsement of the Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB) in the United States.

Brand is defined as a marketing-related intangible asset including, but not limited to, names, terms, signs, symbols, logos, and designs, intended to identify goods, services, or entities, creating distinctive images and associations in the minds of stakeholders, thereby generating economic benefits.

Brand strength is the efficacy of a brand’s performance on intangible measures relative to its competitors. Brand Finance evaluates brand strength in a process compliant with ISO 20671, looking at Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and the impact of those on Business Performance. The data used is derived from Brand Finance’s proprietary market research programme and from publicly available sources.

Each brand is assigned a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score out of 100, which feeds into the brand value calculation. Based on the score, each brand is assigned a corresponding Brand Rating up to AAA+ in a format similar to a credit rating.

Brand Finance calculates the values of brands in its rankings using the Royalty Relief approach – a brand valuation method compliant with the industry standards set in ISO 10668. It involves estimating the likely future revenues that are attributable to a brand by calculating a royalty rate that would be charged for its use, to arrive at a ‘brand value’ understood as a net economic benefit that a brand owner would achieve by licensing the brand in the open market.

The steps in this process are as follows:

1 Calculate brand strength using a balanced scorecard of metrics assessing Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and Business Performance. Brand strength is expressed as a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score on a scale of 0 to 100.

2 Determine royalty range for each industry, reflecting the importance of brand to purchasing decisions. In luxury, the maximum percentage is high, while in extractive industry, where goods are often commoditised, it is lower. This is done by reviewing comparable licensing agreements sourced from Brand Finance’s extensive database.

3 Calculate royalty rate. The BSI score is applied to the royalty range to arrive at a royalty rate. For example, if the royalty range in a sector is 0-5% and a brand has a BSI score of 80 out of 100, then an appropriate royalty rate for the use of this brand in the given sector will be 4%.

4 Determine brand-specific revenues by estimating a proportion of parent company revenues attributable to a brand.

5 Determine forecast revenues using a function of historic revenues, equity analyst forecasts, and economic growth rates.

6 Apply the royalty rate to the forecast revenues to derive brand revenues.

7 Discount post-tax brand revenues to a net present value which equals the brand value.

Brand Finance has produced this study with an independent and unbiased analysis. The values derived and opinions presented in this study are based on publicly available information and certain assumptions that Brand Finance used where such data was deficient or unclear. Brand Finance accepts no responsibility and will not be liable in the event that the publicly available information relied upon is subsequently found to be inaccurate. The opinions and financial analysis expressed in the study are not to be construed as providing investment or business advice. Brand Finance does not intend the study to be relied upon for any reason and excludes all liability to any body, government, or organisation.

The data presented in this study form part of Brand Finance’s proprietary database, are provided for the benefit of the media, and are not to be used in part or in full for any commercial or technical purpose without written permission from Brand Finance.