Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth, undertone and colour family only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar lip gloss overall: shade match 50%, finish and visual result 25%, wear and performance 15%, comfort and suitability 10%.
Overall alternativesShade matchesRanked by the overall match: the most similar lip gloss on shade, finish, wear and comfort together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Ranked by the overall match: the most similar lip gloss on shade, finish, wear and comfort together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same shine: shimmer· Claims hydration
Differences: Brown rather than nude· Glitter rather than sparkle (shimmer)· Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
90
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & suitability
40
Close colour · Shimmer
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Brown rather than nude · Glitter rather than sparkle (shimmer) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim non-sticky
Retailer shade note: golden bronze w/ sparkling glitter
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same shine: shimmer· Both claim non-sticky
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Brown rather than nude· Pearl rather than sparkle (shimmer)
Score details
Shade match
72
Finish & visual result
90
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & suitability
70
Slight colour difference · Shimmer · Sheer
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Brown rather than nude · Pearl rather than sparkle (shimmer) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Retailer shade note: brilliant bronze infused with glittering pink pearl
Refy Lip Gloss with Hyaluronic Acid in Oat, against Anastasia Beverly Hills Universal Luminous Tinted Lip Gloss in Amber Sparkle. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeAmber SparkleClosest shade matchOatHow they compareScore
Shade match50% of overall96
Colour55%93#c6846a#cc8166Very close colourColour difference 1.8 (0 is identical)
Depth15%100LightLightSameDepth difference 0.1 on the 0–100 scale
Undertone15%100WarmWarmSameSame product undertone
Colour family15%100NudeNudeSameSame colour family
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 1 of 3 compared78
Shine40%78ShimmerHigh shineCloseMore shine
Transparency35%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot listed for eitherNeither product lists a transparency
Shimmer25%—not comparableSparkleNot listedNot listed for eitherShimmer not listed for one product
Wear & performance15% of overall100
Longevity100%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Comfort & suitability10% of overall40
Non-sticky50%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a non-sticky feel; the match does not list it
Hydration50%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims hydration; your product does not list it
Overall match 87/100Shade match 96/100High 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.
Tarte Maracuja Juicy Shift in Rosy Copper, against Anastasia Beverly Hills Universal Luminous Tinted Lip Gloss in Amber Sparkle. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeAmber SparkleClosest overall alternativeRosy CopperHow they compareScore
Shade match50% of overall85
Colour55%85#c6846a#c97b5fClose colourColour difference 3.0 (0 is identical)
Depth15%95LightLightSameDepth difference 2.8 on the 0–100 scale
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 3 compared90
Shine40%100ShimmerShimmerSameSame shine level
Transparency35%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot listed for eitherNeither product lists a transparency
Shimmer25%75SparkleShimmerSome differenceShimmer rather than sparkle
Wear & performance15% of overall100
Longevity100%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Comfort & suitability10% of overall70
Non-sticky50%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a non-sticky feel
Hydration50%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims hydration; your product does not list it
Overall match 87/100Shade match 85/100High 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.
31 similar shades scored two ways: the shade match on colour, depth, undertone and colour family; the overall match on shade match, finish and visual result, wear and performance and comfort and suitability. A pair with no swatch colour on one side or Low data confidence is listed without a score. 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.