Impeccable Blurring Second-Skin Matte Foundation 4WP dupes and alternatives Anastasia Beverly Hills
4.4 (4,961)·Medium tan · Warm · peach undertone
Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth and undertone only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar foundation overall, scored on shade match (55%), finish and visual result (25%), wear and performance (15%) and skin suitability (5%).
Overall alternativesShade matchesRanked by the overall match: the most similar foundation on shade, finish, wear and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Ranked by the overall match: the most similar foundation on shade, finish, wear and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for oily skin
Retailer shade note: Medium Deep with neutral olive undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
100
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: medium with neutral undertone
Matches: Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
100
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: medium with neutral undertone
$35Ulta Beauty(product price)$14 less (29%)4.5 (1,573)
Matches: Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim 12-hour wear
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
67
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
67
Close colour · Natural · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 20% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Light rather than full coverage · Not marketed for oily skin
Retailer shade note: medium tan with neutral undertones
$39Ulta Beauty(product price)$10 less (20%)4.3 (1,754)
Matches: Similar undertone (neutral vs warm)· Same matte finish· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Slightly lighter· Medium rather than full coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Medium rather than full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for normal skin
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
67
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 23% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: medium with neutral undertones
Matches: Same matte finish· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Buildable rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
52
Skin suitability
84
Close colour · Matte · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Buildable rather than full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: very intense dark-medium shade, neutral undertone
Matches: Same matte finish· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Buildable rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
52
Skin suitability
84
Close colour · Matte · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Buildable rather than full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Same matte finish· Same full coverage· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone· No skin-like finish claimed· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
49
Skin suitability
100
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim 12-hour wear· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Buildable rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
28
Close colour · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 1% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Buildable rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination/oily skin
Retailer shade note: Medium deep shade with neutral undertones
The closest shade to Anastasia Beverly Hills Impeccable Blurring Second-Skin Matte Foundation 4WP (Medium tan · Warm · peach undertone) in each concealer range, compared on measured colour, depth and undertone. Price never changes the order.
Concealer shade colours are sampled from retailer swatch images, so check the shade on the retailer page before buying.
Why the closest shade match works
Benefit Cosmetics The POREfessional Blurring & Smoothing Foundation in 23W Magnificent, against Anastasia Beverly Hills Impeccable Blurring Second-Skin Matte Foundation in 4WP. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade4WPClosest shade match23W MagnificentHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall95
Colour60%92#b3896d#b68c6bVery close colourColour difference 2.0 (0 is identical)
Finish35%56MatteNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than matte
Coverage30%80FullMediumCloseMedium coverage rather than full (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a skin-like finish; the match does not list it
Blurring15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared52
Longevity30%3512-hour wear24-hour wearDifferent24-hour wear claimed against 12-hour wear
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims not settling into pores or fine lines; the match does not list it
Colour stability15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists colour stability (no oxidation)
Comfort15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall100
Skin type100%100Normal, combination, oilyNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for normal/combination/oily skin
Overall match 82/100Shade match 95/100High confidence· Digital match
Weights are each part's share of the overall match and each attribute's share of its part; an attribute neither product lists is not comparable and its weight goes to the others in its part. Confidence reflects data quality, not similarity. Price and ingredients are not part of either score.
Hourglass Ambient Soft Glow Foundation in 10, against Anastasia Beverly Hills Impeccable Blurring Second-Skin Matte Foundation in 4WP. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade4WPClosest overall alternative10How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall94
Colour60%91#b3896d#b28364Very close colourColour difference 2.2 (0 is identical)
Overall match 82/100Shade match 94/100High confidence· Digital match
Weights are each part's share of the overall match and each attribute's share of its part; an attribute neither product lists is not comparable and its weight goes to the others in its part. Confidence reflects data quality, not similarity. Price and ingredients are not part of either score.
30 similar shades scored two ways: the shade match on colour, depth and undertone; the overall match on shade match, finish and visual result, wear and performance and skin suitability. Ingredients are shown for information and used by the filters only. Prices are shown next to every match and never change a score. How scoring and confidence work.
Shade colours are sampled from Beautler’s processing of retailer swatch images and are a digital approximation. Prices and stock were last checked when the product was imported; the retailer page is the source of truth.
Sephora$4 less (8%)
