Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer 8.75 dupes and alternatives Armani Beauty
4.4 (2,347)·Medium tan · 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· 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
96
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· Both claim long-wearing· Claims not settling into lines
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No blurring effect claimed
Matches: Same warm undertone· Both claim long-wearing· Claims not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly deeper· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
52
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
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: Same warm undertone· Both claim long-wearing· Claims not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly deeper· 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
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: Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
63
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: deep-tan skin tones with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
45
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
$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 lighter· Slightly cooler undertone· Satin rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
71
Finish & visual result
59
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Satin · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · 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: deep with rosy cool undertones
The closest shade to Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer 8.75 (Medium tan · 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
IT Cosmetics Bye Bye Under Eye Full Coverage Anti-Aging Water-Resistant Concealer in 34.5 Rich Golden, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 8.75. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade8.75Closest shade match34.5 Rich GoldenHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall96
Colour60%94#c08862#bb875fVery close colourColour difference 1.6 (0 is identical)
Finish35%56RadiantNaturalSome differenceNatural 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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared68
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%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, combination, oily, sensitiveSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 78/100Shade match 96/100Medium 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.
Too Faced Born This Way Super Coverage Multi-Use Concealer in Warm Sand, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 8.75. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade8.75Closest overall alternativeWarm SandHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall90
Colour60%86#c08862#c88e6dVery close colourColour difference 2.9 (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 79/100Shade match 90/100Medium 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.
Ulta Beauty
Sephora$12 less (29%)
