Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer 6 dupes and alternatives Armani Beauty
4.4 (2,347)·Medium light · Olive 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 shade match: colour, depth and undertone only. Each row leads with its shade match; the overall match is beneath it.
Ranked by the shade match: colour, depth and undertone only. Each row leads with its shade match; the overall match is beneath it.
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
45
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: for medium to tan skin with neutral warm undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
45
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: for medium skin with golden undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim long-wearing· Claims not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
52
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · 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 radiant finish· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly deeper· Neutral rather than olive undertone· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Radiant · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 3% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Neutral rather than olive undertone · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed
$31Ulta Beauty(product price)$11 less (26%)4.3 (1,273)
Matches: Both claim long-wearing· Claims not settling into lines· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than olive undertone· Luminous rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
71
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Luminous · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than olive undertone · Luminous rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed
Retailer shade note: for medium-tan neutral skin with peach undertones
Matches: Same radiant finish· Same medium coverage· Both claim a skin-like finish
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than olive undertone· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish & visual result
91
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than olive undertone · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: medium with neutral undertones
Matches: Both claim long-wearing· Claims not settling into lines· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Luminous rather than radiant finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
77
Finish & visual result
71
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Luminous · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Luminous rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed
Retailer shade note: for medium-tan warm skin with golden undertones
Matches: Both claim a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
76
Finish & visual result
67
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed
Matches: Both claim a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than olive undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
74
Finish & visual result
67
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than olive undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed
Retailer shade note: medium with neutral undertones
Matches: Same radiant finish· Both claim long-wearing· Claims not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Slightly cooler undertone· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
70
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Radiant · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 3% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Slightly cooler undertone · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed
$31Ulta Beauty(product price)$11 less (26%)4.3 (1,273)
Matches: Both claim long-wearing· Claims not settling into lines· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Luminous rather than radiant finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
69
Finish & visual result
71
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Luminous · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Luminous rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed
Retailer shade note: for medium-tan cool skin with rosy undertones
The closest shade to Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer 6 (Medium light · Olive 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
Kosas Revealer Super Creamy + Brightening Concealer in Tone 6.5 O, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 6. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade6Closest shade matchTone 6.5 OHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall92
Colour60%87#cea67e#d1a076Very close colourColour difference 2.8 (0 is identical)
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a skin-like finish
Blurring15%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 2 of 5 compared40
Longevity30%40Long-wearingNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims long wear; the match does not list it
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
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 publishedNormal, dry, combinationSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 82/100Shade match 92/100Medium 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.
Rare Beauty Liquid Touch Brightening Concealer in 310W, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 6. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade6Closest overall alternative310WHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall86
Colour60%92#cea67e#d1a784Very close colourColour difference 2.0 (0 is identical)
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a skin-like finish
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 compared82
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
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 publishedOily, dry, combination, normalSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 85/100Shade match 86/100Medium 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.
Sephora$7 less (17%)
