Luminous Silk Foundation 13.8 dupes and alternatives Armani Beauty
4.2 (3,003)·Deep tan · Olive · warm olive undertone
Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth and undertone only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar foundation 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 foundation 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 foundation 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 natural finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Warm rather than olive undertone· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
28
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 21% ingredient overlap
Differences: Warm rather than olive undertone · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry/oily skin
Retailer shade note: deep with warm deep golden undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same natural finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone· No blurring effect claimed· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Very close colour· Same natural finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily skin
Matches: Very close colour· Same natural finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone· Does not claim transfer resistance· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
49
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily skin
Matches: Very close colour· Same medium coverage· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Warm rather than olive undertone· Radiant rather than natural finish· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
33
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Warm rather than olive undertone · Radiant rather than natural finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry/oily skin
Matches: Very close colour· Same medium coverage· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Warm rather than olive undertone· Radiant rather than natural finish· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
33
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Warm rather than olive undertone · Radiant rather than natural finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry/oily skin
Matches: Very close colour· Same natural finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
58
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for oily skin
Matches: Same medium coverage· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone· Radiant rather than natural finish· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone · Radiant rather than natural finish · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily skin
The closest shade to Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Foundation 13.8 (Deep tan · Olive · warm olive undertone) in each concealer range, compared on measured colour, depth and undertone. Price never changes the order.
Concealer shade colours are sampled from retailer swatch images, so check the shade on the retailer page before buying.
Why the closest shade match works
Fenty Beauty Soft'Lit Naturally Luminous Hydrating Longwear Foundation in 410, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Foundation in 13.8. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade13.8Closest shade match410How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall90
Colour60%91#926340#986239Very close colourColour difference 2.1 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared89
Finish35%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural finish
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists 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 · 4 of 5 compared65
Longevity30%7024-hour wearLong-wearingSome differenceYour product claims 24-hour wear; the match says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim transfer resistance
Settling20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims not settling into pores or fine lines; the match 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 overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, dry, oilyNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for normal/dry skin
Overall match 84/100Shade 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.
Benefit Cosmetics The POREfessional Blurring & Smoothing Foundation in 35N Victorious, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Foundation in 13.8. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade13.8Closest overall alternative35N VictoriousHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall89
Colour60%97#926340#966541Looks identicalColour difference 1.1 (0 is identical)
Transfer resistance20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims transfer resistance; the match does not list it
Settling20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims not settling into pores or fine lines; the match 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 overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, dry, oilyNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for normal/oily skin
Overall match 88/100Shade 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.
32 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$29.50 less (43%)
