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: Near-identical swatch colour· Same shine: shimmer· Both claim non-sticky
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Pink rather than peach· Pearl rather than sparkle (shimmer)
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
90
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & suitability
70
Looks identical · Shimmer · Sheer
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Pink rather than peach · Pearl rather than sparkle (shimmer) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Retailer shade note: pearlescent neutral pink with gold and subtle red pearl
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same shine: shimmer· Claims hydration
Differences: Nude rather than peach· Pearl rather than sparkle (shimmer)· Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
74
Finish & visual result
90
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Shimmer
Ingredients (not scored): 30% ingredient overlap
Differences: Nude rather than peach · Pearl rather than sparkle (shimmer) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim non-sticky
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same shine: shimmer· Both claim non-sticky
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Lighter· Holographic rather than sparkle (shimmer)
Score details
Shade match
63
Finish & visual result
90
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & suitability
70
Visibly different colour · Shimmer · Sheer
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Lighter · Holographic rather than sparkle (shimmer) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Retailer shade note: pale peach with iridescent pearl
Huda Beauty Faux Filler Shiny Non-Sticky Lip Gloss in MidCealer, against Anastasia Beverly Hills Universal Luminous Tinted Lip Gloss in Cantalope. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeCantalopeClosest shade matchMidCealerHow they compareScore
Shade match50% of overall91
Colour55%95#e89e7c#e69978Looks identicalColour difference 1.4 (0 is identical)
Depth15%97LightLightSameDepth difference 2.1 on the 0–100 scale
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 overall40
Longevity100%40Long-wearingNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims long wear; the match does not list it
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 78/100Shade match 91/100High 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.
Fenty Beauty Gloss Bomb Universal Lip Luminizer in MANGO MARGZ, against Anastasia Beverly Hills Universal Luminous Tinted Lip Gloss in Cantalope. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeCantalopeClosest overall alternativeMANGO MARGZHow they compareScore
Shade match50% of overall76
Colour55%68#e89e7c#f69069Slight colour differenceColour difference 5.2 (0 is identical)
Depth15%96LightLightSameDepth difference 2.5 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 83/100Shade match 76/100High 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, 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.
Ulta Beauty
SephoraCosts $5 more
