Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer 7 dupes and alternatives Armani Beauty
4.4 (2,347)·Medium light · Warm · peach 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.
$36Ulta Beauty(product price)$6 less (14%)4.5 (515)
Matches: Same radiant finish· Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Medium-full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish & visual result
85
Wear & performance
80
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Radiant · Medium-full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Medium-full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: medium with neutral/pink undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm 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
90
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
$12.99Ulta Beauty(product price)$29.01 less (69%)4.3 (3,814)
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
93
Finish & visual result
36
Wear & performance
80
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte 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 drying alcohol
Matches: Same warm undertone· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
50
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: medium skin with warm yellow undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
95
Finish & visual result
45
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: tan skin with warm, golden undertones
Matches: Both claim long-wearing· Claims not settling into lines· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed
Retailer shade note: medium with golden to olive undertones
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
79
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: tan with cool-neutral undertones
The closest shade to Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer 7 (Medium light · Warm · peach 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
Too Faced Born This Way Super Coverage Multi-Use Concealer in Sand, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 7. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade7Closest shade matchSandHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall95
Colour60%93#d5a382#dba485Very close colourColour difference 1.9 (0 is identical)
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 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 publishedNormal, dry, combinationSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 82/100Shade match 95/100Medium 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 7. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade7Closest overall alternative310WHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall92
Colour60%87#d5a382#d1a784Very 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 · 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 88/100Shade 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.
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$6 less (14%)
