Light emissive organics and inorganic nanoparticles are substance classes competing for applications in displays in the form of organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) and quantum LEDs (QLEDs), respectively. Upcoming substance classes, perovskites and Q-OLED displays, also contain novel nanomaterials and organics for these applications. However, the safety and viability of these emissive substances is difficult to assess quickly and broadly because of their complexity, their inherently different structures, and their rapid evolution in the literature. We propose the use of an alternatives assessment focusing on hazard, cost, and performance, so as to compare these possible substitute substances, with incombent cadmium-containing quantum dots. This assessment type is used in industry and government to inform chemical substitution. It uses available information, while pointing out important data gaps for decision-making. The cost assessment highlights competitiveness of OLEDs because of the low amounts needed in their application for display, but performance assessments do not identify a preferred alternative. The hazard results indicate that there is no clear alternative either, with each novel nanomaterial or organic substance having different negative aspects. These results identify the need for a low-hazard highperforming alternative substance, and the assessment provides a framework for researchers to evaluate their own novel substances.