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: Near-identical swatch colour· Same natural finish· Both claim 24-hour wear
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
67
Skin suitability
100
Looks identical · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim 24-hour wear
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than natural finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
84
Looks identical · Matte · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Matte rather than natural finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: dark-medium shade, golden undertone
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim 24-hour wear
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than natural finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
84
Looks identical · Matte · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Matte rather than natural finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: intense medium shade, golden undertone
The closest shade to Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Foundation 5.9 (Medium light · Neutral · neutral pink 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 match works
Danessa Myricks Beauty Yummy Skin Soothing Serum Skin Tint Foundation in 6.5, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Foundation in 5.9. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade5.9Closest match6.5How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall92
Colour60%94#cea277#cfa67fVery close colourColour difference 1.5 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared73
Finish35%56NaturalRadiantSome differenceRadiant finish rather than natural
Coverage30%80MediumLightCloseLight coverage rather than medium (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 4 of 5 compared61
Longevity30%7024-hour wearLong-wearingSome differenceYour product claims 24-hour wear; the match says long-wearing without hours
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 overall100
Skin type100%100Normal, dry, oilyNormal, dry, oilyBoth marketed for normal/dry/oily skin
Overall match 83/100Shade match 92/100High 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$21 less (30%)
