Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer 1.5 dupes and alternatives Armani Beauty
4.4 (2,347)·Light · Neutral undertone
Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth and undertone only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar concealer 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 concealer 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 concealer 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· Same neutral undertone· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
99
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
50
Looks identical · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: very fair skin with neutral undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same neutral undertone· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
97
Finish & visual result
52
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Looks identical · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Very close colour· Same neutral undertone· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
95
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: fair skin with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same neutral undertone· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
95
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: fair to light skin with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim long-wearing· Claims not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Satin rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
59
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Satin · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Satin rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed
Matches: Very close colour· Same neutral undertone· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
91
Finish & visual result
52
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Very close colour· Same neutral undertone· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly deeper· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
92
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: light skin with neutral undertones
$8Ulta Beauty(product price)$34 less (81%)4.3 (8,153)
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim long-wearing· Claims not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Satin rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
59
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Satin · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Satin rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed
Retailer shade note: light with rosy peach undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same neutral undertone· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly deeper· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
52
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Very close colour· Same neutral undertone· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly deeper· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: light skin with neutral undertones
The closest shade to Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer 1.5 (Light · Neutral undertone) in each foundation range, compared on measured colour, depth and undertone. Price never changes the order.
Foundation shade colours are sampled from retailer swatch images, so check the shade on the retailer page before buying.
Why the closest shade match works
Dior Forever Skin Correct Full-Coverage Concealer in 0.5 Neutral, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 1.5. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade1.5Closest shade match0.5 NeutralHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall99
Colour60%98#e6c1a3#e8c1a2Looks identicalColour difference 0.6 (0 is identical)
Depth15%100LightLightSameDepth difference: 0.2
Retailer descriptionFairVery fairSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish35%56RadiantNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%80MediumFullCloseFull coverage rather than medium (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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared54
Longevity30%70Long-wearing24-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 24-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims transfer resistance; your product does not list it
Settling20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists not settling into pores or fine lines
Colour stability15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists colour stability (no oxidation)
Comfort15%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; the match does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall50
Skin type100%50Not publishedNormalSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 79/100Shade match 99/100Medium 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 Vanish Airbrush Full Coverage Longwear Concealer in Sand 1.45, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 1.5. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade1.5Closest overall alternativeSand 1.45How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%98#e6c1a3#e8c4a6Looks identicalColour difference 0.8 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98LightLightSameDepth difference: 1.4
Retailer descriptionFairFairBoth described as fairThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish35%56RadiantNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%60MediumFullSome differenceFull coverage rather than medium
Skin-like finish20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a skin-like finish
Blurring15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared68
Longevity30%70Long-wearing16-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 16-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims not settling into pores or fine lines; your product 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 overall50
Skin type100%50Not publishedNormal, dry, combinationSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 85/100Shade match 98/100High 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$3 less (7%)
