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: Slightly warmer undertone· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer 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 olive undertone· Both claim 24-hour wear
Differences: Slightly lighter· Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
91
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
91
Skin suitability
67
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Not marketed for dry skin
Matches: Very close colour· Same olive undertone· Same medium coverage
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish· No long-wear claim· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
92
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish · No long-wear claim · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for oily skin
Retailer shade note: medium with neutral olive undertones
Matches: Very close 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
Very close colour · 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 dark-medium shade, golden undertone
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
83
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: Slightly warmer undertone· No long-wear claim· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
88
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · No long-wear claim · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry skin
Matches: Same medium coverage· Both claim transfer resistance· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than olive undertone· Matte rather than natural finish
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
89
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than olive undertone · Matte rather than natural finish · No blurring effect claimed · Not marketed for dry skin
Retailer shade note: Medium to Dark, neutral undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch 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
89
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
63
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance · Not marketed for normal/dry/oily skin
The closest shade to Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Foundation 6 (Medium · Olive · neutral 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 match works
m.ph by Mary Phillips Le Skin Weightless Serum Foundation in Medium 130 O, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Foundation in 6. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade6Closest matchMedium 130 OHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%97#c19462#bf9565Looks identicalColour difference 0.9 (0 is identical)
Depth15%100MediumMediumSameDepth difference: 0.1
Retailer descriptionMediumMediumBoth described as mediumThe retailers describe the same depth
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a skin-like finish; your product 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 · 4 of 5 compared75
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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim not settling into pores or fine lines
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, dry, combinationBoth marketed for normal/dry skin
Overall match 88/100Shade match 98/100High 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%)
