People who bought this also bought...
Only: £21.25 RRP: £25.00
Only: £22.95 RRP: £27.00
Only: £17.00 RRP: £20.00
Only: £3.40 RRP: £4.00
Vichy Aqualia Thermal Awakening Eye Balm 15ml is rated out of 5 by 18.
Rated 5 out of 5 by beautyfan1 from One of my favourites I tend to put eye creams/gels onto a very slightly damp skin, as I find it not only goes further but sinks in easier. This is a lovely gel like consistency, that is easy to apply, and its effectiveness seems to last all day. It doesn't appear to have the fragrance of the other Thermal Aqualia products which is fine, as some perfumed eye products have irritated my skin before. My only gripe is, that the pump dispenses more product than is needed (for me anyway) so I have to be careful not to push the pump too hard. Other than that I really like this eye balm.
Date published: 2017-05-12
Rated 5 out of 5 by 13ach from Very happy Really like this eye cream it's nice and cooling when you apply it and feels very moisturising.
Date published: 2016-10-18
Rated 1 out of 5 by Aurora52 from Dissapointment As the previous and wonderfull Vichy Aqualia Thermal Eye Roll-on was discontinued, I tried this one hoping it would be an even better version. A huge dissapointment as this eye balm does nothing for my puffy and watery eyes in the morning. My eyes tend to water for a couple of hours in the morning. The Eye Roll-on worked wonders and the watering stopped right away and even the worst puffiness dissapeared soon. This balm feels great and velvety around the eye area but that is all. I have tried other brands but haven't found a replacement for the prevoius Eye Roll-On. By the way, the earlier reviews since January 2015 seem to be written about the Eye Roll-on as they mention the roll-on and the cooling effect...
Date published: 2016-06-10
Rated 1 out of 5 by pylos from Not for me unfortunately I couldn't use this product as it made my eyes smart. I tried it for three days but had to abandon it. I have always had sensitive eyes with regards to make-up but thought as it was tested for ophthalmic conditions it would be OK but am sorry to say it was not.
Date published: 2016-01-27