Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer 4 dupes and alternatives Armani Beauty
4.4 (2,347)·Light medium · Warm · golden 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: Very close colour· Similar undertone (neutral vs warm)· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Slightly lighter· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
45
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: for light skin with neutral golden undertones
The closest shade to Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer 4 (Light medium · Warm · golden 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
MAC Cosmetics Studio Fix 36HR Smooth Angles Hydrating Concealer in NC17.5, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 4. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade4Closest shade matchNC17.5How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall89
Colour60%88#ddb389#e7b489Very close colourColour difference 2.6 (0 is identical)
Finish35%12RadiantMatteDifferentMatte finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%60MediumFullSome differenceFull coverage rather than medium
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 · 4 of 5 compared61
Longevity30%70Long-wearing36-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 36-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%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 publishedDry, normal, combination, oilySkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 72/100Shade match 89/100Medium 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.
Huda Beauty #FauxFilter Matte Buildable Coverage Waterproof Concealer in Sugar Biscuit 3.5 Neutral, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 4. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade4Closest overall alternativeSugar Biscuit 3.5 NeutralHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall82
Colour60%87#ddb389#e7ba94Very close colourColour difference 2.7 (0 is identical)
Finish35%12RadiantMatteDifferentMatte finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%80MediumFullCloseFull coverage rather than medium (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a skin-like finish
Blurring15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 4 of 5 compared61
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Transfer resistance20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims transfer resistance; your product does not list it
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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; the match does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall50
Skin type100%50Not publishedNormal, dry, oilySkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 73/100Shade match 82/100Medium 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.
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.